I like how righties want government out of their lives... unless they don't like what someone else is doing with their life. LOL... yup, clearly this will lead to animal human marriage ::)
The men in black strike again. A 4 to 3 decision. So in the two states where this is legal (CA and MA) and the one state where it was almost legal (HI) it was the result of a handful of judges overruling the will of the people.When the State Congress--I guess it's an approximtaion of the will of the people--makes a law, it is the job of the Judiciary to say what that law is.
At least one of the California Supreme Court justices gets it:
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
When the State Congress--I guess it's an approximtaion of the will of the people--makes a law, it is the job of the Judiciary to say what that law is.
Beach Bum isn't this the very essence of "States Rights" where each state is permitted to do as it pleases?
Isn't the court preserving the civil rights of the 110,000 gay couples living as married in California?
Are civil rights open for removal by popular or unpopular decision?
Is it not tyrannical to impose on those couples the will of the public--whether a noisy minority or a suffocating majority?
Stay tuned for answers to these questions and more coming up after the break.
Yes states rights is about the people deciding to do as they please, not a handful of judges legislating from the bench.It appears that homosexuals have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry and start a family.
Homosexuals don't have a civil right to marry each other, so no the four judges in California aren't preserving civil rights.
Yes civil rights can be removed by popular decision if the people amend the Constitution. In any event, homosexual marriage isn't a civil right. Homosexual behavior is not a protected class like race, religion, national origin.
Lifestyle choices are, always have been, and always should be subject to popular vote.
Looks like I just hit for the cycle. Next softball? :D
Marriage is a 'behavior'?
Where do you people learn this stuff?
It appears that homosexuals have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry and start a family.
The distinction of "protected class" melts away under the weight of a US citizen's fundamental right.
I, for one, am glad that government is being restrained from interfering in the private lives of citizens. Aren't you?
When did fundamentalist christianity stop being a lifestyle choice?
I think Beach Bum's concern is that it will snuff out the reason for people marrying in general. This has not been born out in any study worldwide where gay marriage is accepted. Heterosexual people still marry.
Beach Bum also thinks abortion should be outlawed, but he has as yet not adopted a single unwanted child. Nor does he want to pay for anyone else to do so as he can't afford it.
Must feel good to want to go back to the 1950's, with no plan whatsoever, but count on God to take care of everything.
Yes, any man has a right to marry a woman and any woman has a right to marry a man.Is that what this is about? The level of judicial scrutiny of gov. legislation is lower for protected classes under a 14th A analysis.
Homosexuals are not a protected class under the Constitution and I think you know that Decker.
I am not glad that five judges overruled the will of the people. They should put this on the November ballot and let the people decide.
My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it.
Is that what this is about? The level of judicial scrutiny of gov. legislation is lower for protected classes under a 14th A analysis.
What is the judicial scrutiny for (14A) fundemantal rights violated by gov. legislation? Isn't that judicial scrutiny strict scrutiny? The same as for protected classes? If homos enjoy a fundamental right to marriage then they enjoy a fundamental right to marriage.
Aside from all that, aren't you glad that big gov. is removed from the private affairs of people?
Who is being forced to be gay??
Christ almighty, man, you're taking direct quotes from la-la-land today.
Who is being forced to be gay??
Christ almighty, man, you're taking direct quotes from la-la-land today.
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't say anyone was forced to be gay. I said they are attempting to use the government to force people to accept a lifestyle choice.
Do you need a civics lesson or something? Marriage is a contract with the state. It's in part a state funded institution. In other words, we the people help pay for it. People advocating homosexual marriage are attempting to use the government to force the people to accept this behavior as a state-endorsed concept. What happened in California is five judges just said to the millions of voters: screw you. They are attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice.
Are you saying homosexuals are a protected class under the U.S. Constitution?No, I'm saying the court has extended a fundamental right to marriage to homosexuals.
I've been 'forced to accept' marriage in order to save money, so now the shoe is on a different foot.
Gays do not choose to be gay. Sure, there are people who are in situations that warrant same-sex sexual activity, but they are not, by definition, gay.
Homosexuals are people who happen to be wired differently than non-homosexuals...but that doesn't make them NOT people.
So-called 'Christians' shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths on this issue.
No, I'm saying the court has extended a fundamental right to marriage to homosexuals.
Homosexuals choose to be homosexual and there is no science that proves otherwise.
This isn't a "Christian" issue. Check the numbers. Voters overwhelming reject homosexual marriage whenever it's put on the ballot.
So, the rule of bigotry should be allowed? Puh-leese, this is AMERICA.
Why do you need expensive scientific research to tell you how - physiologically - people 'become' gay?
Are all the gays (who state that they were born the way they are) liars?
Why should I believe you and not them?
As far as I know, you're the liar.
They enjoy a right to marry a person of the opposite sex.I have not expressed an opinion on polygamy. By my logic, the fundamental right to marriage should be extended to the velvet crowd.
Using your logic, laws banning polygamy should be unconstitutional.
What do you think will happen when a homosexual marriage meets the Defense of Marriage Act?
We have to let americans be americans.
What?? lol. You smoking the ganja today? My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it.
Deedee quit making stuff up. When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed? Quote me.
No, I have never adopted an unwanted child. I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment. How many kids do you have?
And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child? Good grief woman. I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.
And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?
You must be joking.
The men in black strike again. A 4 to 3 decision. So in the two states where this is legal (CA and MA) and the one state where it was almost legal (HI) it was the result of a handful of judges overruling the will of the people.That's all there is to say about it. Seven people overruled the vote of the people. What's the point in voting if judges can do this. Rest assured, this will be a HOT HOT HOT topic in the general election. Now, it is on record that the judges could care less about what people think, and we know for a fact that a liberal-minded White House and Congress wants more legislation from the bench. This is why they are stalling with the judicial nominees that President Bush selected.
At least one of the California Supreme Court justices gets it:
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
That's all there is to say about it. Seven people overruled the vote of the people. What's the point in voting if judges can do this. Rest assured, this will be a HOT HOT HOT topic in the general election. Now, it is on record that the judges could care less about what people think, and we know for a fact that a liberal-minded White House and Congress wants more legislation from the bench. This is why they are stalling with the judicial nominees that President Bush selected.
It was actually only 4 people. It was a 4 to 3 decision. Sounds like there will be a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California.Yes indeed.
What?? lol. You smoking the ganja today? My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it.
Deedee quit making stuff up. When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed? Quote me.
No, I have never adopted an unwanted child. I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment. How many kids do you have?
And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child? Good grief woman. I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.
And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?
Opposing government endorsement of a lifestyle choice isn't bigotry. And I agree, this is America, where people are free to do whatever the heck they want as consenting adults. Just don't expect the government to legitimatize your behavior.
Why do we need science? Oh sure, let's just let people like you say homosexuality is genetic. Works for me.
Why should I believe you instead of the people who started as heterosexuals, chose to become homosexual, and then chose to become heterosexual again, like Anne Heche?
And don't forget that the homosexual lobby includes bisexuals under their umbrella. Is bisexuality genetic too?
With that said we are bound to the code of dogmaI was joking.
What type of effect does this have on society?
In my opinion it opens up the flood gates (no offense Tre, hehe)
Creating anomie (Emile Durkeheim, society values diminishing)
Very sad.
This should be fought, and it will be.
A Disappointing Decision in California
source: aclj.org (http://aclj.org)
By a vote of 4-3, the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage — a ban that had the overwhelming approval of California voters.
The decision is a disappointing one and represents another example of an activist judiciary that overreached by taking this issue out of the hands of the state legislature where it belongs. We’re disappointed that the California high court failed to uphold what an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand — that the institution of marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This decision guarantees one thing: the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide.
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the essence of the majority decision is summed up in this quote: "Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
Justices who dissented understood the fact that this issue rests with the voters and the state legislature. Consider this conclusion in a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Justice Ming W. Chin: "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves."
More from the dissent:
"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."
"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."
If life has taught you anything, it should be that there are few absolutes and that the only constant is change.
Some people are 0% homosexual, others are 100% homosexual, and a majority of the world's population falls somewhere in-between. Along those same lines, people can be 'more homosexual' on some days than they are on others.
Actually, i don't smoke anything. I suppose from this time on, we won't see any more of your trying to keep people from getting birth control. :)
I was joking.
The only thing this decision threatens is the worldview of people bigoted, for whatever reason, against gay people.
They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.
I hope they make marriage with animals legal next. That way, some tards on Getbig can move to California too.
Yeah I know, but it threatens more than that.
People being bigoted, thats casuality of going forward with this marriage 'thing'
This is not just change, it's fundamental chaos at the roots, principles and morals our country was based on.
They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.
And we slide ever closer to an "anything goes" society. Speaking out against this or saying anything negative or critical of anything within the gay community is akin to speaking of Israel in this country: you cannot openly speak of such things without being strongly condemned.
Chalk another one up for the all-powerful Gay lobby. Opposing sex marriages are just a lifestyle choice now aren't they? Having a wife and children is the equivalent of an S&M marriage from the Fulsom Street Parade, isn't it? And the Pink Hand continues to influence............... ..
Then again, what else can we expect from a state that houses an institution that spews forth garbage and filth across all mediums?
4 idiots (judges).... overturn 4 million who voted to keep marriage between man and woman.
I hear democracy getting flushed down the toilet.
That's funny, that's what the liberals have been saying since 9/11
Well let's unite and take over America then.
When would you like to march on Washington? ;D
Homosexuals choose to be homosexual and there is no science that proves otherwise.
This isn't a "Christian" issue. Check the numbers. Voters overwhelming reject homosexual marriage whenever it's put on the ballot.
Bum - for about the millionth time - lack of evidence of concrete genetic factor does not prove that being gay is a choice. It's a logial fallacy that you're either unable to comprehend or simply choose to ignore.
Gay human beings overwhelming say that it is not something they chose.
When you claim that it is a choice you're saying that either all gay people are liars (on this topic) or that you, in your infinite wisdom, know what's going on in the hearts and minds of other people better than the actual people know themselves
O.K. I will let you humor me. Lack of "concrete genetic factor"? How about zero scientific proof.
It's obviously a choice. From a scientific standpoint, there really isn't much to discuss. The proof doesn’t exist. If you want to rely on the overwhelming number of homosexuals you appear to know so intimately well, then go right ahead. Doesn't really matter to me.
Do we "choose" to be heterosexual?
That was an argument i heard on the radio earlier this week.
so you're saying that if something can't be proven true then it MUST be false?
You're also agreeing that you know the what goes on in the mind and hearts of other people better than they know themself?
Do I understand you correctly??
Actually, I think the Gay lobby will win this thing.
Gays are a strong group in the society today. Very few have kids, they are well-above average in earnings and education.
Especially male gays are becoming increasingly a strong interest group, with more pulling power than their number would suggest. In comparison to eg feminists (half of the population!) or other minority groups, gays are very successful in getting their message through.
The image of a gay person being AIDS ridden and something wrong is getting increasingly outdated.
I think the Christian Conservatives are fighting in vain. The gays are just too strong and will sooner rather than later get marriage passed.
The strategy to attach gay issues to voting ballots aren't gonna work forever either.
Because the gay lobby is pulling votes, and those votes are valuable.
Everytime the GOP or an interest organisation associated with the GOP gets an gay issue attached to an election, they automatically gets the growing gay lobby against the GOP ticket.
Which will be disaster.
JMO.
I've said before I believe things like homosexual marriage are inevitable. But it should happen only when the people decide, not some knucklehead activist judges.
You do what comes natural when you hit puberty, which includes being attracted to the opposite sex.
I'm saying don't invent a fact and ask other people to disprove it.
I didn't say anything about knowing what's in anyone mind or heart. I was talking about science.
So no, you don't understand me correctly.
Opposing the gays would be political suicide. :-\
The gays have been discussing adoptions and shit for so long now, so marriage seems like a non-issue in comparison.
I used to be against gays having the right to adopt, but I realized that it wasn't based on facts, it just felt wrong.
So I don't really have an opinion, if people with experience on the topic thinks kids adopted by gays gets by just as fine, then I can't have any objections.
Or conversly, if they oppose it, I would go with that.
This is a case where I think you gotta go with what research and experts tells you.
Or the same sex or not?
Nah. Not normally anyway. How do you think we all got here? :)
Nah. Not normally anyway. How do you think we all got here? :)
I always thought the best form of birth control was to kill a stork.
:) Or this:
(http://mommylife.net/archives/scissors.jpg)
California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest
Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 18, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.
The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.
"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."
Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.
As he sometimes does with the most incendiary cases, George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the majority. Even the likely dissenters had to be told in "pink slips" of every word change.
On Wednesday, the long-awaited ruling was finally ready.
Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich locked up stacks of the fat, stapled court opinions in his office to protect against leaks, and George's staff asked that security be beefed up. A fellow justice told George she would be at her desk in the morning because she wanted "to be part of history."
On Thursday, George was in his chambers, being interviewed for a documentary on death penalty administration. He said he wished he had canceled the interview.
He was on camera when he heard "a big roar" from the crowd outside.
George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends. Four years ago, he peered out his chambers' windows across from San Francisco City Hall to watch gay couples lining up to marry. He saw the showers of rice, the popping of champagne corks, the euphoria of the couples.
He later joined four other justices in nullifying the marriage licenses, which the court deemed to have been granted illegally by San Francisco. The court refused to take up the constitutional questions of same-sex marriage then, insisting the cases work their way up through the courts.
A trial judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A court of appeal overturned that ruling. And finally, the case was on George's desk.
'Very fatalistic'
George said he had voted to void the marriage licenses because he did not think they should be "in limbo" while the courts tackled the constitutional issues. Once he took up the constitutional challenge, he said he did not permit any consideration of political fallout.
"I am very fatalistic about these things," he said. "If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it's time to hang up your robe."
Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more.
During the two-hour interview with The Times, he refused to disclose anything about the court's internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading aloud from the decision. His elegant and comfortable chambers had neat stacks of papers piled on the floor, all over his desk and on a long conference table.
Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: "I really don't know."
He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
California's decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.
Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said.
By the time of the same-sex marriage oral argument in March, three other justices had tentatively decided to join George's opinion. They are Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and (sole Democrat) Carlos R. Moreno, the court's more liberal wing.
George said the oral argument marked the "highest point" for the court, and he was "so glad" the session was televised. "I was incredibly proud of how we acquitted ourselves in such a difficult and well publicized case," he said.
Relations among the justices remained warm and cordial. George said he was even pleased with the dissents, which contended that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by the people, not the court.
Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were "homophobic" and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements "that you don't find" in California's dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan.
'A real conundrum'
"When is it that a court should act?" George mused. "When is it that a court is shirking its responsibility by not acting, and when is a court overreaching? That's a real conundrum. I have respect for people coming out on different sides of this issue."
George's reputation for caution is based on the court's tendency, under him, to decide cases narrowly, refusing to reach issues not necessary to the case at hand. Advocates thrust the central constitutional question of equality for gay people on the court; there was no way to avoid it.
George also had taken risks before. Shortly after Gov. Pete Wilson elevated him to chief justice in 1996, George obtained enough votes to change the court's stance on parental consent for abortion. He wrote the ruling that overturned the state's parental consent law, sparking a campaign by anti-abortion groups to oust him.
After a justice's appointment, voters are asked to retain him or her at the next gubernatorial election. At the time of the parental consent decision, some judges were just squeaking by their retention votes.
Eric George, 39, a Los Angeles lawyer and the chief's eldest son, decided to mount a full campaign to protect his father's seat. After George was reconfirmed by a healthy margin, Eric George said he gave his father some playful advice.
"Could you wait at least 10 years for another controversial decision like this?" he asked.
George said the only other decision that anguished him as much as same-sex marriage occurred at the beginning of his career, when as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge he insisted that a serial killer known as the "Hillside Strangler" be prosecuted over the objections of the Los Angeles district attorney.
The district attorney's office said there wasn't enough evidence to win a conviction, so George asked the attorney general's office to prosecute it. The trial, expected to last a year, took two years. George remembers warning his wife, Barbara, "This may become known as George's folly." The jury eventually convicted on nine of 10 murder counts.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed George's court tenure, said "the biggest surprise" of the marriage ruling was that George favored it. Uelmen said George must have done "some real soul searching."
The "very carefully written opinion" reflects that George "is very sensitive to how this will be perceived," Uelmen said. "He realized that this more than any other thing he does as chief justice will define his legacy. He'll certainly take a good deal of political heat over this."
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.
"His change from where I thought he would be is baffling," said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.
UCLA law professor Brad Sears said, "Definitely what created the majority was George's support."
A proposed initiative that would amend the Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage is headed for the November ballot, but even if it passes, gays in California will enjoy heightened protections from discrimination as a result of Thursday's ruling. George will appear on the state ballot for retention in two years.
He went home Thursday night drained and discovered a card left by friends at his San Francisco apartment. It was a Japanese watercolor of a branch with red berries. His friends had written "Congratulations!" inside.
"Why not go out on a limb?" the greeting on the card read.
O.K. I will let you humor me. Lack of "concrete genetic factor"? How about zero scientific proof.So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?
It's obviously a choice. From a scientific standpoint, there really isn't much to discuss. The proof doesn’t exist. If you want to rely on the overwhelming number of homosexuals you appear to know so intimately well, then go right ahead. Doesn't really matter to me.
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html
Decker - surely you're aware by now that Bum simply chooses to ignore anything that doesn't fit his pre-conceived beliefs on pretty much any topic.I like Beach Bum. He's tenacious.
I like Beach Bum. He's tenacious.
On the matter at hand, it will be interesting to see his response to the animal kingdom's lifestyle choice.
It's simple, Those are animals. Humans are different. ;DThat's really good Ozmo. I mean it. That does resemble one of his responses.
That's really good Ozmo. I mean it. That does resemble one of his responses.thanks :)
I suppose if I were to answer that, I'd point out that human consciousness is more sophisticated than animal consciousnes. If 'lifestyle choice' encompasses a reflective perspective where many lifestyles are considered but only one chosen, then I'd have to say that animals are not capable of that sort of mentation.
Therefore the notion that homosexuality, common to both the human and animal worlds, is not a lifestyle choice.
It's something else.
thanks :)With all that living in the closet, getting dragged to death behind a pickup truck and general second class citizenry, it's a wonder more people aren't clamoring to choose the lifestyle.
BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him. Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles.
But to the issue:
I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.
Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.
I'd have more respect for Bum if he wouldn't avoid debate when confronted with his illogical and at times bigoted arguments.Rare is the time that chill runs down my spine from something I read on these boards.
It would be one thing if he just said that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle of gay people.
Instead he continually uses patently flawed logic to pretend he's proven that being gay is a choice.
I also can't ignore the fact that he agrees with Dobson that you can "de-gay" your kid by taking a shower and letting him check out your junk and then showing him how to to pound square pegs in square holes.
wtf???
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html
Rare is the time that chill runs down my spine from something I read on these boards.
That de-gay shit just made the list.
thanks :)
BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him. Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles.
But to the issue:
I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.
Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too. And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior.Make up your mind Beach Bum. Is homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice or is it deviant behavior? By definition, homosexuality is not normal. By 'normal' I mean the norm--what most people are doing. Homosexuals make up, what, 10% of the population. As far as sexuality goes, that is definitely not the norm.
For example, infanticide.
Infanticide (zoology)
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
(http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/crcas/2004/crcas040206.gif)
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too. And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior.
For example, infanticide.
Infanticide (zoology)
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
thanks :)
BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him. Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles.
But to the issue:
I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.
Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.
Make up your mind Beach Bum. Is homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice or is it deviant behavior? By definition, homosexuality is not normal. By 'normal' I mean the norm--what most people are doing. Homosexuals make up, what, 10% of the population. As far as sexuality goes, that is definitely not the norm.
Then again, to Freud, all sexual expression that is not coital is deviant. So kissing, oral sex anal sex and the vast panoply of other sexual experiments/expressions is deviant.
Infanticide? Why not try cannibalism? Necrophilia is up there as well.
How does any of that prove that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or aberrant behavior?
Bum - you seem to be making a ethical judgement based on your own human standards.
Have you ever considered that there might be a biological imperative why this activity might occur within the animal kingdom?
Make up your mind Decker. Does the fact that behavior occurs in the animal kingdom mean the same behavior is predetermined in humans or not? You're the one who brought up animals. Follow your analysis to its logical conclusion (which would include cannibalism, etc.).My mind is made up. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. It was accepted and practiced as normal during Classical Antiquity. I don't care how a man or woman lives their lives. As long as they pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a manner that does not interfere with my own interests, I say live and let live.
My mind is made up. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. It was accepted and practiced as normal during Classical Antiquity. I don't care how a man or woman lives their lives. As long as they pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a manner that does not interfere with my own interests, I say live and let live.
This is not a slippery slope argument even though your trying to make it into one. So the references to infanticide and cannibalism do not belong.
You are the one that called homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice.
Animals do not create an array of choices on how they should live their lives.
Yet homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom.
Therefore there must be another explanation other than conscious choice since animals are not capable, for the most part, of framing their existences and choosing a homosexual lifestyle.
I think this might be why you get frustrated Straw Man. You constantly bring up red herrings, straw men, etc. (That's why I think you have a great name.) I didn't say a word about ethics.
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.
And no, I have never considered that abnormal/unnatural behavior in animals is a "biological imperative." The sole purpose of sex in the animal kingdom is propagation of their species. Animals don't engage in homosexual behavior to survive.
Bum - I stopped being frustrated by your simplistic and child-like view of the world a long time ago.
Back to your usual semantic horseshit?
Calling something abnormal/unnatural is an ethical judgement based on your own personal standards.
Wrong again - Animals also engage in sexual activity to express dominance and for pleasure too. Not unlike humans
I would imagine all sorts of abnormal/unnatural behavior has been around quite a long time. That really doesn't prove anything.No, homosexuality was not considered 'abnormal/unnatural' in Classical Antiquity. It was practiced and accepted.
Let me ensure I understand you. Because animals engage in homosexual behavior, that same behavior in humans is therefore "normal"? But when animals engage in things like infanticide, that same behavior in humans is abnormal/unnatural?
Listen little man (or woman, whatever the heck you are), why don't you just sit this one out. You always have trouble following discussions.
No, homosexuality was not considered 'abnormal/unnatural' in Classical Antiquity. It was practiced and accepted.
Is infanticide an 'obvious lifestyle choice' the way you purport homosexuality to be?
how about you address the argument instead of acting like a little girl with sand in her vagina?
how about you address the argument instead of acting like a little girl with sand in her vagina?
I'll assume I do understand your position. It's irreconcilably inconsistent.The fact that both humans and animals practice homosexuality pretty much kills your theory that it's a lifestyle choice.
Infanticide is obviously a choice, unless the person is insane. The fact humans and animals practice infanticide doesn't make the behavior normal/natural in humans.
The fact that both humans and animals practice homosexuality pretty much kills your theory that it's a lifestyle choice.There's no evidence that environmental factors (rather than genetic code) play a key role in homosexuals? ???
Unless of course animals are operating on a goal setting/teleological course self determination of which I am not aware.
There's no evidence that environmental factors (rather than genetic code) play a key role in homosexuals? ???I don't know what the cause is. I do know that it is not a lifestyle choice.
I think we need Bay or another gay person's input on this one.
And Bay, please giv us your honest thoughts, no BS. Just keep it real.
Cuz I'd imagine you would've thought about this one more than any of us.
I mean, is there something psychological, or is it purely biological?
In other words, how does it feel to be gay?
::) Ah shaddap Bob Marley. Is this one of those days you occasionally smoke marijuana? That would explain why you're acting a fool (again).
The fact that both humans and animals practice homosexuality pretty much kills your theory that it's a lifestyle choice.
Unless of course animals are operating on a goal setting/teleological course for self determination of which I am not aware.
If nothing else, I commend your self-discipline for waiting so long before starting your usual ad-hominen bullshit.
Oh boo hoo. Quit crying. Man up already. ::)
I don't know what the cause is. I do know that it is not a lifestyle choice.If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice?
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice?
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice?
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice?
Ding!
Humans "Being created by God" have a responsibility to act within moral guidlines of what the creator states in the scriptures.
I realize that there are disturbing things (In the scriptures) that were allowed under some circumstances, but that doesnt mean it was "Condoned"
As sinners we have animal desires at times but we are to fight and put ourselves above this.
Now in my opinion....I think alot of gays are born this way......i had a friend who explained what torture it was for him to be attracted to females (No he wasnt coming on to me) ;D he said if i told you right now that you had to start being attracted to men tomorrow, that society demanded it, how would you feel??
This made alot of sense to me and how do you explain some guys who are effiminite talkers and some girl jocks that could clean your clock.??
Even in Bodybuilding we realize hormone levels come in all different levels...some guys gain easy and some dont......
That said God, loves all of his children and will give them the strength. Im not worth one plug nickel more than any other human on this planet..(gay or not).......Each of us has different challenges to overcome.
Good post.
And what if God created you with both sets of genitalia? Should you consult a priest/pastor about whether God wanted you to be of male or female gender? Or should you just let the doctor play God as they used to in the past?
The fact that both humans and animals practice infanticide pretty much makes your theory that animal behavior normalizes human behavior patently absurd.I have an idea.
The connection doesn't work Decker.
I have an idea.
Since you state that homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice, why don't you sit down with a squirrel, dog, whale and bird and have a roundtable discussion about the criteria they use to determine whether they choose, as part of their lifestyles, to be gay.
To choose, one has to be conscious of the options available to fulfill a purpose. If animals are as capable as humans of making lifestyle choices, then you should have no problem eliciting that information in a discussion with them.
PS: You are confusing "life style choice" with aberrant behavior.
Beach Bum: Homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that homosexuality is genetic.I like you Beach Bum. But you are a master at obfuscation.
Decker: But teacher . . . I mean Beach Bum, look at the fact that animals engage in homosexual behavior.
Beach Bum: The fact animals engage in abnormal behavior does not in any way establish that the same behavior in humans is normal. For example, look at infanticide, which happens with both animals and humans.
Decker: [stammer, hedge, move goal posts] . . . Well. . . . I don't know what causes homosexuality, but I know it's not a lifestyle choice. Now why don't I give you an absurd hypothetical . . . like go talk with animals. Yes, Beach Bum, go talk with animals!
Beach Bum: [sighing, seeing the obvious signs of a person trying to save a ridiculous analogy] Why don't you have a lawyer friend use the praying mantis defense.
[Decker and Beach Bum now exchange mock question and answer]
Yep!
Free the slaves.
Women and blacks can vote.
Gays and lesbians can marry.
Deal with it! ;D
Sorry for the late response, but.....
You are correct. I can and will deal with it. I don't have to like it, as I believe things such as homosexuality should be kept to the dark and secret recesses of society......behind closed doors, and not in the open. It's my opinion, and it's an opinion that the majority of the world's people share. It's an opinion that isn't going to be changed, nor is it going to go away. You can scream accusations of bigotry all day, but you can't stifle and silence millions on an everyday basis. Tolerance goes both ways here.
In addition, comparing the gay community's "plight" to what was once legalized slavery is weak and downright offensive. The financially richest tier of people in the US as a group have no claim nor no basis on identifying and comparing themselves to the various plights of peoples within the US, past and present.
I like you Beach Bum. But you are a master at obfuscation.
You changed the subject from homosexuality as an "obvious lifestyle choice" to some ridiculous abstraction involving infanticide, animals and people.
You did that. Just look over the past posts.
Back to the matter at hand. Just answer me one question if you please:
If homosexuality is an "obvious lifestyle choice", do animals obviously choose to be homosexual?
I like you too Decker. But you are a master at asking loading questions, asking questions based on a false premise, and changing the facts/scenario when the error of your viewpoints are highlighted.If homosexuality is an obvious choice then animals must choose to be homosexuals b/c homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. Therefore animals must share the same sophistication of thought that humans have in defining their existences.
I didn't change the subject. I'm not the one who brought up animals. You are the one who brought up animals as a means of proving that behavior occurring in the animal kingdom somehow proves that same behavior in humans is normal. That analogy makes no sense for the reasons I've already stated.
Your last question is another example of a loaded question,
.....You loaded the question with your conclusion my friend. Animals do not choose the way humans choose b/c they cannot fathom the goals/consequences of their actions in choosing a lifestyle. Incest aside, it seems that something else other than 'choice' is the factor in determining the behavior.
But to answer your loaded question, of course not. The reason animals have sex is to propagate their species. They don't "choose" to engage in sex that will cause their species to die. They no more "choose" to engage in homosexual sex than they "choose" to kill their children. They engage in instinctual behavior, some of it normal, some of it abnormal.
Since we're doing this absurd hypothetical thing, how about this: do animals choose to have sex with their offspring?
If homosexuality is an obvious choice then animals must choose to be homosexuals b/c homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. Therefore animals must share the same sophistication of thought that humans have in defining their existences.
Do you see how you are twisting that around and calling it:
Your conclusion itself is grounded on the assumption that humans and animals make conscious choices.
But if animals, as you pointed out, do not choose in the same way people 'choose' (see below) then there must be another explanation for living the gay lifestyle b/c it cannot be by choice.
You loaded the question with your conclusion my friend. Animals do not choose the way humans choose b/c they cannot fathom the goals/consequences of their actions in choosing a lifestyle. Incest aside, it seems that something else other than 'choice' is the factor in determining the behavior.
That said God, loves all of his children and will give them the strength. Im not worth one plug nickel more than any other human on this planet..(gay or not).......Each of us has different challenges to overcome.Well said, War-Horse! That He does. :)
Animal behavior is instinctive, human behavior largely is not. We choose, they don't.
what is there left to say
anytime you're confronted with logic or your lack thereof you either ignore it, change the subject or start whining like a little bitch
that is why is pointless to try to have a discussion with you as an adult
Well then quit trying to engage me fool. How many times do I have to tell you that? If you can't have an exchange without acting like a hypersensitive baby, and you can't handle my responses, quit trying to have discussions with me. Very simple. Maybe you should put a post-it on your computer or something. Your memory sucks. It's the ganja?
Study: Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent
Friday, July 27, 2007
LONDON — Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.
The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291043,00.html
Well then quit trying to engage me fool. How many times do I have to tell you that? If you can't have an exchange without acting like a hypersensitive baby, and you can't handle my responses, quit trying to have discussions with me. Very simple. Maybe you should put a post-it on your computer or something. Your memory sucks. It's the ganja?
Study: Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent
Friday, July 27, 2007
LONDON — Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.
The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291043,00.html
Fortunately, Justice George on the CA Supreme Court disagrees with you. It’s not a coincidence that a 68 year old judge who saw Jim Crow as a child invoked memories of that inequality in crafting his decision in the present case.
As has been said previously, the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution is not (and must never be) subject to popular vote. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835, the ‘tyranny of the majority’ must always be checked by the courts. Critics who decry ‘activist judges’ don’t appear to understand how American law works: the democratically expressed will of the people is always subject to judicial review for Constitutionality. Not only are Judges not abusing their power, this is exactly what their power is for! I don't have to "stifle and silence millions on an everyday basis." The courts have effectively done that and they will continue to do so as long as they are charged with ensuring equal justice under law.
I can perfectly understand why conservatives are so upset by this ruling though. It is further proof that their philosophy is being consigned to history’s dustbin of bigotry. No one likes to admit their increasing irrelevance. I don’t suppose many people here have read the many pro-slavery arguments articulated throughout the first half the 19th century. I have. You all sound remarkably similar and equally irrelevant.
As for keeping homosexuality in the dark and secret recess of society, people like you used to say the same thing about the disabled (but that’s a whole other subject). Fortunately, you don’t get to decide these things.
The future is about equality--in all its forms--for everyone; your philosophy has no place there. Ta ta :-*
Sorry, but having f@gs marry is an abomination. America's road to Sodom and Gomorrah is moving forward rapidly.
Thankfully, none of the current presidential candidates approve of this ridiculous bullshit.
Do you think interracial marriage is an abomination?It's not the same. I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white. It's not a civil rights issue. Not by a long shot. I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM. Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.
The people who are quick to condemn gay marriage are the very ones committing adultery and falling in and out of marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce. Traditional marriage is in trouble but that is because of your behavior--not mine.
It's not the same. I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white. It's not a civil rights issues. Not by a long shot. I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM. Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.Thank you. :)
It's not the same. I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white. It's not a civil rights issue. Not by a long shot. I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM. Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.
Funny you should say that because Mildred Loving, the black plaintiff in the case of Loving vs. Virginia (1967) which overturned the ban on interracial marriage thought it was a civil rights issue (as did Coretta Scott King); she was a big proponent of gay marriage. She passed away earlier this month.Race is an artificial creation that did not even exist until modern times. In America it was initially a term to delineate people as a way of justifying physical enslavement of a specific group, the stealing of the land of others, and to preserve the sanctity of white womanhood by fearful white males.
It is obvious you did not choose to be black and should not be denied any rights associatedd with that. I did not choose to be gay and don’t believe any gay person should be denied any rights associated with that either.
But this case does not depend on analogies, similar precedents, or the endorsement of third parties. It turns on the question of equality: do you believe people should be treated equally? You say 'no' but the Constitution says “yes.” In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court said “yes” (and you especially should be glad they did). In 2008 the CA Supreme Court said “yes.”
Critics of this case say the California Supreme Court is out of bounds for overturning the ‘will of the people’ but unfortunately the will of the people is often wrong. If equality depended on a popular vote you and your wife could not be married, and you most certainly would not have access to the education you have made possible by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). It would appear that you value equality only to the extent that it benefits you; that his heartbreaking. There were many white people agitating for black civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s and long before. They didn’t have to be there, but they were...
I believe in equality for all people; you do not. Sadly, that is where we part company. :'(
I could care less what “churches” do or don’t do. As far as I’m concerned they have no moral authority. The Catholic Church has committed wholesale murder on direct order from ‘his holiness’. Look up the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, for example. For a long time the Church turned its back on the Holocaust…
In America various denominations of “the church” (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) sanctioned slavery and murder; even into the 20th century it was common to attend church on Sunday morning and lynchings on Sunday afternoons. In our own time, we have priests in the church molesting young men and women and instead of holding them accountable leaders in the church simply move them to other parishes where they can prey on other victims…
All I care about is equal justice under the law. For all people. The Constitutions guarantees that and the Courts enable it. I think I speak for most gay people when I say that gay marriage has nothing to do with the church. Rather it is about the extending of rights that heterosexual couples enjoy to gay couples who choose to get married.
For those of you whom do care about “the church” if lightening didn’t strike over the church’s endorsement of murder, slavery, lynching, or molestation, I wouldn’t hold my breath for it to strike over sanctioning a gay wedding. ::)
Of course you don't care about the church, because it condemns you for your immoral lifestyle. You don't like to be told that plowing another man in the anus is a sin before God, so you seek to avoid it so you can do whatever feels good.
Marriages are typically presided by ministers and administered in houses of worship. Hence my mention of the church. If you don't agree with any organized religion and don't believe in God, take your gay ass to a courthouse and file for a civil union. >:(
Of course you don't care about the church, because it condemns you for your immoral lifestyle. You don't like to be told that plowing another man in the anus is a sin before God, so you seek to avoid it so you can do whatever feels good.
Marriages are typically presided by ministers and administered in houses of worship. Hence my mention of the church. If you don't agree with any organized religion and don't believe in God, take your gay ass to a courthouse and file for a civil union. >:(
Shut it Benny Negr0
Just because it's indecent to you doesn't mean others should be denied the same freedom.
As we know all too well, people who quote the Bible, reference scripture, and teachings of “the church” are the worst sinners of all: I do not share your psycho-spiritual beliefs so its tenets are really nothing to me, but those of you whom love to invoke it routinely violate the teachings of your own faith.
How bizarre that you would expect a nonbeliever to follow your psycho-spiritual beliefs when you cannot do so yourself. It is you who are damned. :-[
It's not the same. I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white. It's not a civil rights issue. Not by a long shot. I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM. Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.
Well said Colossus.
Also, what people should keep in mind is this isn't just about homosexual marriage. It's about redefining gender. For example, for the past several years people have tried to push a "gender identity" bill through the legislature that redefines gender to mean whatever a person wants it to be, on whatever day they want. It's already in our statutes regarding housing and hate crimes. Just a matter of time before it is imposed in the workplace.
As we know all too well, people who quote the Bible, reference scripture, and teachings of “the church” are the worst sinners of all: I do not share your psycho-spiritual beliefs so its tenets are really nothing to me, but those of you whom love to invoke it routinely violate the teachings of your own faith.
How bizarre that you would expect a nonbeliever to follow your psycho-spiritual beliefs when you cannot do so yourself. It is you who are damned. :-[
And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.;D
;D
I'm waiting on Bay's classic f@g response as well.
I admit to...eh...experimenting with the activity on occasion with a former girlfriend, simply because she liked it and wanted me to stick it in her butt. ;D As a straight man I've never have had any real desire for anal sex. That's the exit hole...not meant for entry. :P I think for some men it is a power trip to have a woman submit herself to that act. It basically implies that she is willing to do anything to please you if she lets you bang her anally.
I've heard the "activist judges circumventing the will of the people" argument too many times, and I've had enough. Sadly, in American history there have been all too many cases when the will of the people was narrow-minded, ignorant, and exclusionary. Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, also apealed to the justice system to pave the way for legalizing interracial marriage - which her state outlawed. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that Ms. Loving should have allowed the citizens of Virginia to vote to abolish their legislatively-approved Racial Integrity Act, or that Chief Justice Warren was an "activist judge" who circumvented the will of the people.
— Leah, Boston
Californians narrowly reject gay marriage, poll finds
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.
By Cathleen Decker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 23, 2008
By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.
But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.
More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.
Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.
The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?
Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.
"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll director Susan Pinkus.
The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.
The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.
Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.
Asking for a delay
Thursday, supporters of the proposed amendment asked the court to place its decision on hold until after the election. Failure to do so "risks legal havoc and uncertainty," lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, noting that same-sex marriages entered into between now and November would be under a legal cloud if voters approved the ban. Court experts, however, say it is unlikely the justices would agree to such a lengthy delay in implementing their ruling.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.
The governor, who in his nearly five years in office has often butted heads with his GOP colleagues, was once again on the opposite side of most in his party: Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans disagreed with his views on the court decision and the amendment.
Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.
"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."
Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."
"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."
On the opposite side is Lena Neal of Perris, who said she supported the court's decision and would vote against an amendment. Neal, a Democrat, based her views on the experiences of an elderly family member, who she said was part of a decades-long same-sex partnership. When one of them entered the hospital, she said, the other was not allowed to visit -- that benefit was restricted to family members.
"It's their right," she said of gay marriage. "They're humans."
Indeed, the poll found that views on gay marriage were greatly influenced by personal connections. Of those who said they knew a friend, a family member or a co-worker who was gay, nearly half approved of the court's ruling -- more than twice the proportion among those who said they were not acquainted with a gay person.
The divide was as stark when it came to the proposed constitutional amendment: 70% of voters who said they did not know a gay person would vote for it, a position taken by just 49% of voters who said they knew a gay person.
The poll, under Pinkus' direction, interviewed 834 Californians, including 705 registered voters, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction overall and 4 points for registered voters. Margins were larger for demographic subgroups.
The poll found the state polarized when it came to gay marriage. In most surveys, majority views are somewhat ambivalent -- but on this issue they were sharply drawn. More than 4 in 10 Californians said they strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while almost 3 in 10 strongly approved. Smaller groups described their views as lukewarm.
Generally, the poll found consistency between views on the court decision and the proposed amendment. Overall, Californians opposed the court's view by a 52%-41% gap. The strongest opposition came from Republicans and self-described conservatives. Married respondents, those without college degrees, senior citizens, white evangelical Christians and those in suburban Southern California were also strongly opposed.
Those same groups were also among the strongest backers of the proposed amendment.
Most supportive of the court decision were liberals -- more than 7 in 10 of whom favored the ruling -- Democratic men and Democratic women, whites with college degrees and Bay Area residents.
Majority support -- if barely -- came from the two political groups whose backing generally spells success in California: The state's largest party, Democrats, backed it by a 55%-39% margin, and the fastest-growing political group, independents, supported it 51% to 40%.
Yet support for the ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa. Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. Democratic men favored the ruling but were split on the amendment. Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment.
Effect on the election?
The interaction between the amendment and the presidential election is difficult to divine six months from election day. Among the reasons is that the court put itself at odds with the candidates -- neither Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois, nor Republican McCain, a senator from Arizona, has backed gay marriage. All have sided instead with civil unions that would ensure benefits for same-sex partners.
For the candidates, the confluence of the gay marriage issue and the presidential election represents risk. For the Democratic nominee, the party's traditional allegiance with the gay community could lead to pressure on the candidate to embrace gay marriage -- perhaps alienating more moderate voters here and elsewhere.
McCain, meanwhile, will be pinched between the party's religious base, which is strongly in favor of the amendment, and the independent voters who generally recoil from social issue battles but whom McCain needs in order to win.
Some leeway
The poll suggested that the candidates may have a little leeway: Only 1 in 4 registered voters said they would vote only for a candidate who agreed with their own position on marriage. Almost 6 in 10 said they could vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed -- suggesting that the issue was far from the top of most voters' agendas.
Responding to a separate question, only 10% of registered voters said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing the state, although more than 5 in 10 voters characterized it as important, just not the most important. Another third of voters said it was not important at all.
Among those who felt it was the most important, more than 6 in 10 were conservatives or those who consider themselves part of the Republican religious base. They were overwhelmingly voting for McCain, the poll found.
But those who felt it was either not important, or not the most important issue facing California, were siding with a Democratic candidate over McCain.
This cartoon is 4 years old... is it still relevant? ::)
The problem with that, BayGBM, is that, when an amendment goes to the ballot, the percentages by which it passes is higher than the sample poll taken in the same state (even in blue states).
And, if memory serves me correctly, this went down in Hawaii, an very-blue state, over a decade ago. Its Supreme Court ruled that the laws that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W, for simplicity's sake) were unconstitutional. However, the voters put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and passed it by a 69-31 margin.
There's only one way to find out how the voters feel about this issue: Take it to the ballot box.
Correct. Three justices in Hawaii tried to impose this on the people. Seventy percent of the voters then reserved marriage to a man and woman. And this is arguably the most liberal state in the country. Only 11 of our 76 state legislators are Republican. Liberals have controlled the state for over 40 years.
The folks in California are asking the state Supreme Court to stay its decision, until this get solved at the polls. The Court decision becomes final on June 14. However, there may be another hiccup. By the same state Constitution, legal forms can't be changed, unless such is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor (in this case, a certain 7-time Mr. Olympia).
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172)
http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906 (http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906)
According to these articles, the earliest this can happen is January 2009. If that's the case, this puts a monkeywrench in the plans of same-sex couples. By the time this process even gets started, the voters of California can approved the amendment, hence putting this issue to rest in the Golden State.
This also causes a problem from non-California residents with plans of getting "married" there and returning to their home states, demanding that their marriage licenses be recognized. Some legal experts see this as a ploy to ultimately reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defines marriage as a 1M-1W union and declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.
Interesting development.
I've always questioned what will happen when a court-ordered homosexual marriage in one state runs up against the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in another state. Maybe Decker can comment on this?
That hasnt been an issue, because the lone state in which gay "marriage" is legal already has a separate law that states that it will not issue marriage licenses to any couples, who reside in states where such would be illegal.
As for the Supreme Court, there are two cases that address this issue (indirectly). One is Murhphy v. Ramsey, which aimed to stop polygamy:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
The other is a Minnesota Supreme court decision backed by the federal Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson. It basically rejected the right to same-sex "marriage", as defining marriage as a 1M-1W union did not violate the 14th amendment. When this ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was rejected for lack of a substantial federal question (thus making it binding on all lower courts). The high Court has not addressed this issue since that time (1971).
So, if it does go up again, gay "marriage" advocates must make the case as to why defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates the 14th amendment now; whereas it did not 37 years ago.
Also of note is that the gay couple who filed the suit, tried using Loving v. Virginia, which occured less than 5 years prior, to make the case for gay "marriage". However, that tactic was ineffective.
And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.u dont do colonics?
Those polls mean absolutely nothing. It only matters, when it's all on the line, when the amendment is on the ballot.
What gets me is, if those who believe that marriage is strictly a 1M-1W union can get signatures and have state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot, what's stopping advocates of gay "marriage" from doing the same? Where are their ballot drives? Where are their petitions?
Again, something similar happened in Hawaii. The state court overturned the marriage law. There were polls cited about alleged accepted of same-sex "marriage". But, the constitutional amendment (defining marriage as a 1M-1W union) passed 69-31.
Good points. I hope this is something that is ultimately decided by voters.
Agreed. But it's inevitable, it will happen at some point in the future.
What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?
Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.
Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.
The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.
Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.
That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.
What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?All the more reason that the upcoming presidential election is crucial seeing that whichever candidate wins will be replacing at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.
Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.
Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.
The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.
Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.
That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.
10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay Marriage
Friday, May 30, 2008 2:30 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.
The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.
They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.
The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gay_marriage_states/2008/05/30/100258.html
They don't have to do so, according to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why gay "marriage" supporters were looking for a state, other than Massachusetts, to legalize it.
Baker v. Nelson already stated that bans on gay "marriage" don't violate the 14th amendment, which is the argument that supporters will attempt to use. They must present the case as to why it does not, as it did not 37 years ago.
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:
California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)
Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”
“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”
In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.
“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314 (http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314)
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue. It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment. Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution. And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.
California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)
Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”
“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”
In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.
“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314 (http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314)
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?no more than that mormon cult already does
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?
no more than that mormon cult already does
No more so than getting divorced and remarried does. I bet everyone reading this knows someone who is remarried once, twice, or even thrice!
The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue. It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment. Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution. And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.
no more than that mormon cult already does
In other words, more of a mockery.
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?fecal matter on the penis
At some point who really gives a sh1t? Unless of course you are a closet phobe.
At some point who really gives a sh1t? Unless of course you are a closet phobe.
No one does care, that's what is so funny.
I'm not really in favor of re-defining marriage but will gladly trade marriage meaning less for not having to hear gays carp about the issue anymore.
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?
The fact that their marriage licenses may only be good for another 5 months.
2 counties to halt all weddings, gay or not
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer
(06-10) 18:50 PDT -- County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.
Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.
County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.
In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples. Butte County Clerk Candace Grubb, meanwhile, blamed budget constraints, telling the Chico Enterprise-Record that her decision was made long before the court ruling.
In Merced County, Clerk Stephen Jones also announced that all marriages were being halted, though he later reversed his decision.
Conservative populations
Neither Barnett nor Grubb returned calls seeking comment Tuesday, nor did officials with the Alliance Defense Fund. That group, which argued in court against same-sex marriage, has urged county clerks to oppose such unions.
Both counties have conservative populations that overwhelmingly supported a 2000 ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a law found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 15. Advocates of that law are going back to the ballot in November with a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
Gay marriage advocates said the decisions to halt all marriages in the rural counties limits options for gay and straight couples who do not want or are denied a religious ceremony.
Only a handful of people - including religious officials, state legislators, retired judges and magistrates - may marry couples under California law. County clerks also may marry couples, and they may deputize any member of the public to perform the ceremonies.
Some county clerks said the budget argument seems a stretch, though they acknowledged that both Butte and Kern counties might not have enough staff to deal with a large influx of couples.
It's a no-brainer'
Steve Weir, Contra Costa County's clerk and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, noted that the state allows counties to set their own fees for marriage ceremonies so they can recover the costs associated with performing the duty.
"It's a nice service that we provide to the public, and it's not costing me anything. In this day and age with the budget situation, how can you go wrong providing a public service that helps with your overhead? It's a no-brainer," Weir said. "Other folks might say you can go to another county, but that's not the point. I'm not going to say you can register to vote in Alameda County because we're not in the same political party."
Others said they doubt that the clerk's office in any rural, conservative county would be overwhelmed with gay couples come next week. Kings County Clerk Ken Baird, for example, said he would be surprised if more than a handful of same-sex couples wanted to get married there.
"Bakersfield (the Kern County seat) is not a very safe place to be out," added the Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County. "We are not expecting that many couples, maybe 10 or 12."
Free marriages
After hearing of the decision, Tetzlaff announced she would perform free marriages to same-sex couples until Nov. 4, when voters will weigh in the proposed constitutional amendment.
Next Tuesday she plans to offer her services to all couples getting licenses at the county building. But she said she and other gay-marriage supporters have been told that the police will not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there.
"We are looking at places nearby where we can be, and there are a number of us that are going to be supporting the couples as they go in to get their licenses," she said.
Kern County Supervisor Don Maben asked county officials Tuesday to explore other options for folks who want to tie the knot, including possibly bringing in officials from another county to perform the ceremonies. The Kern County Board of Supervisors will not take up the matter again until July, he said.
"I am concerned that this is disenfranchising all citizens from having civil marriages in Kern County," he said. "This is an 8,000-square-mile county, and there aren't a lot of opportunities (for civil ceremonies)."
Maben said he is "getting a lot of flak" for raising concerns about Barnett's decision but, that to him, it's not a gay-rights issue - it is simply a marriage issue. At least 25 opposite-sex couples who had weddings scheduled at the clerk's office are also being forced to make other plans, he said.
Options limited
In the meantime, couples wishing to get married in Butte or Kern counties could have limited options. Many churches refuse to perform gay marriages, though Tetzlaff said a number of clergy members in Bakersfield will marry same-sex couples privately. If Barnett or Grubb will not deputize her staffers or members of the public to perform the marriages, couples might have to find other public officials or retired judges who can - or leave the county, which could significantly increase the cost.
Weir, who is openly gay and plans to marry his partner next week, said while clerks are not legally bound to perform marriage ceremonies, they are public servants.
"We take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of California," he said. "It's a public ministerial process we perform for the public, and to a degree we have a monopoly on it - you can't go across the street to a private clerk's office."
Will Weir still uphold that oath, if the marriage amendment passes in November?
All of this could have been avoided, if the judges had simply ordered the stay and WAITED, until the election to see the results.
According to this article, the amendment will be retroactive. It makes no sense to give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be null and void 5 months later.
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850 (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850)
And, again, I ask, what's is stopping those who support gay "marriage" from doing what their opponents did: beating the streets, starting petitions, and driving to get a constitutional amendment to the ballot to favor their cause?
I agree. Really doesn't make any sense not to stay their decision.
They don't beat the streets because there is no groundswell of support. Voters don't want it. And it's not just "Republicans," "conservatives," or "religious" voters.
At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.
At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.
A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:
Light green - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued
Why do gay people want to get married? Haven't they suffered enough already?...just kidding! ;D
All joking aside, gay people are not just protesting that they can't get married in certain states. They are also protesting that they can't get divorced. Yes, that's right, those gay people that managed to get married are now protesting that they can't get divorced now or that the divorce process for them is now too difficult.
Same-Sex Couples Face
Another Growing Hurdle -- Divorce
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121306493888759775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I agree with you
we should outlaw marriage for everyone
;D
I was kidding about that. Marriage can be great if both people are willing to commit for life and work through their many problems. :)
A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:
Light green - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued
I agree with you
we should outlaw marriage for everyone
Yes, outlaw marriage; a primitive and antiquated institution and more costly than it is effective in so many ways.
To what extent do you think this will affect traditional marriage?
Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay itThis thread really means a lot to you, eh homo?
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.
The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.
The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.
San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."
"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.
But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.
"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.
This thread really means a lot to you, eh homo?
Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.
The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.
The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.
San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."
"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.
But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.
"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.
I think I linked a similar article from Liberty Counsel. As this blurb mentions, the Court of Appeal regains the case on the 16th. The argument goes that the Court of Appeal can issue the stay, because the California constitution requires that either the Legislature or the electorate must make the new law (signed by the governor) and the new legal forms to accomodate gay "marriage".
The problem for gay "marriage" supporters is that, should the stay occur, by the time the Legislature gets around to doing that, the election will have occured with the vote on the marriage amendment. If it passes, marriage will clearly be defined as a 1M-1W union, nullifying the courts ruling.
And, as stated before, even if gay couples do get marriage licenses starting next week, they become void, if the amendment passes in November.
source??citizenlink.org (http://citizenlink.org)
How have you been personally harmed??Great question for you to delve into and find the answer, bro.
citizenlink.org (http://citizenlink.org)
Great question for you to delve into and find the answer, bro.
Opponents lose last-ditch legal bid to stop same-sex weddings
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
(06-17) 12:41 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- While today's gay and lesbian weddings proceeded, a state appeals court rejected a conservative religious group's last-ditch attempt to put same-sex marriages on hold until California voters consider the issue in November.
The Campaign for California Families argued that the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex weddings should not take effect until the Legislature had a chance to rewrite or repeal a host of laws governing marriages and domestic partnerships.
The organization also said the courts should avoid confusion about the status of marriages performed in the next few months by suspending the ruling until a Nov. 4 vote on an initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco denied a stay without comment this morning after receiving the case from the state's high court, whose ruling became final at 5 p.m. Monday. The appeals court returned the case to a Superior Court judge in San Francisco for final orders to state officials to make sure each county clerk's office was complying with the marriage ruling.
I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.;)
That's No Man, That's My Wife
Burt Prelutsky - townhall.com (http://townhall.com)
Monday, June 30, 2008
I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
That story was in the Washington Post awhile ago, but the details were slightly different.
I guess if gay people marry, they'll be open to the same crap hetero people deal with when a relationship goes sour and they have a child.
It's a good thing that Lisa Miller just happened to find God when her legal bills started to pile up. It was a gift from heaven. :)
But the real moral of the story is, whether straight or gay, don't marry someone you met at an AA meeting.
The real moral is never to marry in the first place...
Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs
Matt Barber
You've probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" Well, don't buy it for a minute.
With its recent 4-3 opinion – which arrogantly presumed to redefine the millennia-old definition of legitimate marriage – the California Supreme Court daftly divined that the framers of the California Constitution intended – all along, I guess – that Patrick Henry really had a constitutional right to "marry" Henry Patrick. In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged "same-sex marriage" on the countryside.
Abomination, you say? Isn't that a bit strong?
Nope. God used it. And I'll give just one example of many as to why He did. Keep in mind, though: If California voters fail to pass a constitutional amendment in November to undo this extremist act of judicial social engineering, we can expect thousands more examples just like it.
Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive "gay" lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.
For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they've been unable to do so, as Lisa's dark past has come back to haunt them. They've been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont's civil union laws ("gay marriage" by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.
Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa's lesbian "civil partner." Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl. Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont's highest court determined that – because of a brief "civil union" from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn't seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted "parental" rights and visitation.
Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety.
But it gets much worse. Because Christianity is biblically incompatible with unrepentant homosexuality, and since Lisa teaches Isabella God's express design for human sexuality (one man, one woman within the bonds of marriage), Jenkins has claimed in the past that Lisa is an unfit parent. Precisely because Lisa is a Christian, Jenkins has essentially argued that she's not fit to raise her very own daughter.
But it gets worse yet. On June 18, in an act that can only be described as pure evil, Jenkins' attorneys filed a "Motion for Transfer of Both Sole Legal and Physical [Custody]" of Isabella to Janet Jenkins. Yes, you read that right. This unrelated, near-perfect stranger and her single-minded homosexual activist attorneys are trying to permanently rip this horrified child from her mother's loving embrace as a sacrifice to the gods of postmodern homo-fascism. Unfortunately, with the history of this Vermont court, the motion may well be granted.
Still, there is a silver lining to this tragic story. Attorneys with Liberty Counsel, the Christian civil liberties law firm representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, have filed an action in Virginia asking the commonwealth to respect its Marriage Affirmation Act, the federal DOMA and Virginia's constitution, which stipulates that Virginia "shall not create or recognize" "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages" from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such "unions" (such as Vermont's custody ruling).
This pits the laws of Vermont directly against the laws of Virginia. If Virginia does the right thing and tells Vermont to keep its "civil unions" to itself, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the conflict.
But on a larger scale, Lisa and Isabella's tragic story demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages."
So-called same-sex "parenting" willfully deprives a child of his or her mother or father and is fundamentally immoral for that reason (among others). We know conclusively that it's best for children to be raised with both mom and dad. It's not always possible, but even with single parenting, there's always the chance that the other half – an adoptive mother or father – will enter the picture.
We need only rely on common sense, but the preponderance of research has proven that a mother and a father each possess unique qualities central in helping to formulate who a child ultimately becomes.
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:
"In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
"The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"
Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).
Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion...no matter who gets hurt in the process.
And Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of that agenda. Unfortunately, if this perversion of justice in California is left to stand, and if Virginia chooses not to rebuff Vermont's outrageous ruling in the Lisa Miller case, there will be many, many more.
Gay-Marriage Opponents To Boycott McDonald's
By Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer
A group that opposes same-sex marriage has called for a boycott of McDonald's, saying the fast-food giant has refused "to stay neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."
The American Family Association (AFA) launched the boycott yesterday because McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce several months ago and placed an executive on the group's board of directors, in addition to donating to the chamber.
The association asked McDonald's to remove itself from the chamber but the burger-maker declined, leading to the boycott. "We're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in," Tim Wildmon, the association's president, said yesterday.
"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman said. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."
In March, the association ended a two-year boycott of Ford after the automaker largely stopped advertising its Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in the gay media. The association also has boycotted retailer Target for substituting "holiday" for "Christmas" in its advertising and the Walt Disney Co. for its "embrace of the homosexual lifestyle."
Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.
As a result, faith-based groups such as the AFA are following the example practiced for years by the secular left, which has targeted corporations for their policies on environmental, workplace and human-rights issues.
The AFA "exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values," the group's Web site reads. The organization, based in Tupelo, Miss., has 2.8 million people on its e-mail alert system and sends its monthly magazine to 170,000 people, Wildmon said.
Wildmon said his group wants McDonald's to give up its membership in the chamber, which is located in Dupont Circle, next year and to remove its logo from the chamber's Web site. "I think the request we're making is more than fair," Wildmon said.
A call to chamber president Justin G. Nelson was not returned.
Wildmon said that his group would not object if McDonald's gave money to a group that, for instance, assisted gay HIV/AIDS patients. "You wouldn't hear from us," he said. "That would be classified as humanitarian aid." The AFA has planned no on-site protests, Wildmon said.
In a May 29 letter to Wildmon, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris wrote: "McDonald's is associated with countless local and national affinity groups. . . . We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share the belief that every person has the right to live and work in a community free of discrimination."
On its new Web site, BoycottMcDonalds.com, AFA says the boycott is not about McDonald's hiring or serving gay patrons or its treatment of gay employees. Instead, the boycott is motivated by McDonald's throwing "the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."
Ascertaining the impact of such boycotts can be tricky. Ford's monthly sales slumped at times during the AFA boycott, but so did those of General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota. The boycott coincided with an industry-wide slide in sales of SUVs and trucks, Ford's core products. "It is so difficult to sort out what cause and effect is today with the number of variables that are in play," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.
Ford, which has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover lines, said gay-oriented ads constituted a small slice of its marketing budget. When cuts were made, mainstream-market advertising was reduced, while niche advertising was all but eliminated.
In a March statement, the company said: "Ford will continue to market its products widely to attract as many customers as possible and make charitable contributions to strengthen communities to the extent business conditions allow. Difficult business conditions in recent years have reduced our overall spending across the board."
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8
After a tweak by the state attorney general's office, the initiative now seeks to 'eliminate the right' of same-sex couples to marry, wording that the measure's proponents say could prejudice voters.
By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
latimes.com (http://latimes.com)
July 29, 2008
Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure's ballot title and summary.
Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."
Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall.
"This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns said.
On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.
"What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."
Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.
The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot.
And it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics.
"He is delivering something . . . that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote 'No,' " said political analyst Tony Quinn.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became a hero to the gay and lesbian community in 2004 when he officiated same-sex marriages that were later invalidated by the state, is also exploring a run for governor.
Quinn added that language changes that substantive are "highly unusual."
Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.
Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed.
"The title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.
He noted that language in titles and summaries often changes between the time a measure is circulated for signatures and when it appears on the ballot.
In another change, the revised language predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said that in the long run there would "likely be little fiscal impact."
Since the AG can't stop the amendment from hitting the ballot, he's trying to stack the deck in favor of the "No" votes. He's supposed to stay impartial, put the amendment on the ballot as is.
It's on those who support gay "marriage" to make their case to the people. In my view, the key to this amendment will be, as it was with Prop. 22, rallying the citizens OUTSIDE the L.A. and San Francisco areas. In 2000, when Prop. 22 hit ballot, those two areas made up the lion's share of the "No" votes.
It was the other 52 counties in California that carried the mail and got Prop. 22 passed. This will undoubtedly require a major grass-roots rally from churches and other institutions that are in favor of this amendment. If they can get the voters out in mass, then this amendment will pass.
Keep in mind that this would not be the first time the Cali. Supreme Court has ruled something "unconstitutional", only to have the people vote (via amendment) to override that ruling. In 1972, the court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional. Just a few months later, the people amended the state constitution, legalizing the death penalty, once again.
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.
The right to marry has already been there. This issue is about defining what marriage is. This amendment says "one man and one woman", as Prop. 22 did.
The judges made their ruling, based on how the state constitution CURRENTLY reads. If the amendment passes, they must rule, based on how it would read then. Everyone can participate in marriage. If some don't want to do so, because of their preference, that's on them. Being able to participate and wanting to do so or not (based on "sexual preference") are different things.
The Attorney General is merely supposed to put the amendment on the ballot, after ensuring that those who submitted it, followed the proper procedures. He is NOT doing that. He's trying to sway public opinion to vote "No!", which is wrong, given his position. Let the people look into the issue for themselves and make the call on election day.
Are you saying gays have have the right to get married?
How is marriage defined? Federally, it's the union of a man and a woman.
Can gays participate in marriage, based on this definition? YES!!!
Do they want to do so? NO!!!
Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.
ok - semantic games aside - Do people in CA have the right to marry another person of the same sex?
Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.
I've had the ...uh, 'pleasure' (for want of a better word) or observing this woman operate very closely,
...and lets say lesbian is not the word I'd use to describe her, ...'ambitious opportunist' is more appropriate IMO
Others may have a decidely less diplomatic term for her.
There are no semantics involved. The judges changed the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to just "two people". Based on that, the folks in CA do have that. In three months, the people will get their say on how they want marriage defined in their state.
My point is that there's a difference between having the right to participate in marriage (but not doing so, due to sexual preference) and changing the definition to suit one's preference. That begs the question that many gay activists and their supporters like to avoid, namely why marriage should be changed to fit their preference but not that of others (polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).
The judges didn't change the definition of marriage - the Supreme Court of CA decided that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitituional and therefore same sex couples have have the right to get married.
What's the problem?
Do you think anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is going to be confused b the word change? If anything it helps clarify the intent of the proposition?
Perhaps, that's the case. Regardless, any lesbianism (actual or perceived, past or present) had no bearing on her getting a marriage license. She showed up with a man and got one.
Again, it's about changing the very definition of marriage itself. Basically, it's a union between a man and woman. Even within that framework, there are limiting factors: age, family relations, number of participants.
If gays have the right to have their preferences met, shouldn't those who like kids (say under 13) be able to have theirs met, as well. What about those who dig close relatives? What if first/second cousins simply isn't close enough? Don't those folks have the "right" to have marriage changed to accomodate them?
And, why is just two people? That's a question some polygamists are asking now. If gays can have the rules changed, then they can, too.
I have no problem with polygamy
who cares
why do opponents of same sex marriage think it can be conflated with any other permutation that they can think up
Then, what was the definition of marriage, prior to the court's ruling? And, what kept gays from participating in it?
There's a reason the term "same-sex 'marriage' " is used. It's because marriage's natural definition is that of a man and a woman.
The intent of the amendment is to change the definition of marriage BACK to what it was (what the people CLEARLY STATED that it should be in 2000): a union between a man and a woman.
Because, staying that changing the gender requirement for marriage is fine, but changing the age, family relation, or number of participants is wrong (as many gay "marriage" supporters) do makes no sense.
Back to the amendment, the AG should NOT be trying to word the amendment one way or the other. Were he doing so, in an attempt to bump up the "Yes" votes, I'm sure you'd disagree with his actions.
Where was it clearly stated in 2000?
Are you referring to the ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court of CA as being unconstitutional or are you referring to something else?
so you're saying gender is equivalent to age, family relation, etc...
I've already stated that I don't have a problem with it.
Why do you think it would bump up Yes votes. Don't you mean No votes?
Why do you think the word change would skew the outcome?
By Proposition 22, voted into law by the populace.
And determined to be unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court
As far as marriage restrictions go, it is. You seem to think that it is not. Again, why is changing gender restrictions cool but changing any of the others isn't?
I didn't say it would bump up the "YES" votes. You don't have a problem with what the AG is doing, because his intent is to influence the voters to say "No". If he were using different wording, with the intent of getting the voters to say "Yes", I believe you'd have a problem with that.
He shouldn't be tinkering with it, one way or the other. Put the amendment on the ballot, AS IT WAS SUBMITTED, and leave it alone.
That is why Prop. 8 is on the ballot. If it becomes part of the constitution, the court's ruling is void.
at the present time the court have determined that same sex couples have the right to marry right?
btw - shouldn't we just get rid of the Supreme Court and just put EVERTHING up for a vote
State courts are guided by state constitutions. And the people have the right to alter their states' constitution. Last time I checked, we had (or are supposed to have) government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
'ambitious opportunist'"Pot, meet Kettle." :P
"Pot, meet Kettle." :P
Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc.
What you mistakenly refer to as ambitious opportunism, is merely pragmatic prudence.
I'm not about to commit suicide by allowing myself drown in an upcoming flood.
Like Noah, I'm gonna build an ark. And like Noah, ...I watch the naysayers, & skeptics being swept away
There are forces in this world that are bigger than us.
These forces will either push us into success, or they can crush us.
When the winds of change start blowing, ...success or failure all boils down to how we set our sails.
We can scream about the storm, ...or we can learn to dance in the rain.
I choose the latter. ...and oh what a perfectly profitable storm it is. (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/whistle.gif)
How's being a lesbian treating you these days, Jag? ;DProbably as well as being a sexually frustrated heterosexual has treated you, "Deicide". :D
Probably as well as being a sexually frustrated heterosexual has treated you, "Deicide". :D
I doubt it; being a lesbian is significantly easier.Well to that I must say, I wouldn't know because I am neither.
Well to that I must say, I wouldn't know because I am neither.
How's being a lesbian treating you these days, Jag? ;D
Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,but didnt you play a hooker in a movie ???
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc.
but didnt you play a hooker in a movie ???
Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc.
]
when you said this
i assume you got paid for playing a hooker in the film
maybe sexuality wasnt the word you meant to use
Then don't bring it up... ::)How did I bring up jag being a lezbo, you no pussy pulling fucktard?
OK, I understand what you're saying, and the point you're trying to make, ...I just don't agree with it.of course portrayal of a hooker doesnt make you one i agree i never meant you are a hooker.
as I sit here formulating a clarification, it's not making any sense, even though it does make sense,
...so I'm not even going to offer it. I will instead say... a 'portrayal' of someone who trades sex for money is not the same as actually trading sex for money. Portrayal of a hooker doesn't make you one.
of course portrayal of a hooker doesnt make you one i agree i never meant you are a hooker.
but you did in fact use your sexuality for money in that movie correct?
one more question. what is your objective review of that movie? do you give it a thumbs up or down? is it worth the time to watch in entirety?
of course portrayal of a hooker doesnt make you one i agree i never meant you are a hooker.
but you did in fact use your sexuality for money in that movie correct?
one more question. what is your objective review of that movie? do you give it a thumbs up or down? is it worth the time to watch in entirety?
That's a good point. Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money. I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of any actor.
But . . . you have to draw the line somewhere. Like Ving Rhames (sp?). I don't care what role he plays or how much of a tough guy he trys to be, he will always be the guy who got raped in Pulp Fiction. :o
::)
Yawn. ::) You bore me Straw Man.
I guess I don't capture your attention as much a Ving Rhames
Yes you do. I give as much attention to one homosexual as I do another, so you both get equal attention (which is not much). :)
None taken. I think you're weird, but I don't know you. Anyone who gets offended by things typed on an anonymous message board needs to rearrange their priorities.
::)
That's a good point. Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.
You're making an unfair assumption based upon your own imagination or lack thereof.
'Hooker' is simply a job title. it's quite possible to establish someone's job title or "occupation" in a script without actually having them perform the job in question. Given time restraints, that is more often than not what occurs.
One can easily portray a hooker without using ones sexuality.
ie: Law & Order - the detectives interview a "neurosurgeon" in his home. Do they have to show the guy performing brain surgery to establish his character's occupation ... no they don't do they.
A chef: Dress the guy up in a funny white hat, stick him in a restaurant, and voila. What culinary skills has he used?
Pure semantics. A hooker is defined by the fact she has sex for money.
In real life perhaps, ...however on film, ...it's a whole other story. In films, she is defined by a stereotype.
More semantics. In what movie is a hooker not someone who sells sex for money? The stereotype is she sells her body for money, which is an accurate stereotype.
No, ...the stereotype is a woman dressed in a micro-mini, fish net stockings and loud rabbit fur jacket.
Toss in some big hair, loud gaudy jewelry, have her chew gum like Britney Spears and voila... film industry hooker!
Yes, but in what scenario is a hooker not someone who sells sex? She (or he) doesn't have to actually stand on a corner or be in the bed with someone to convey that they are a hooker, but however they portray their character, the substance of his/her occupation does not change.
The discussion wasn't about the definition of a hooker, ...but whether or not I'd used my sexuality to portay one.
Can we get this thread back on-topic please? ...you know, ...all about how California is going to hell because two men or two women will be able to call their legal union a 'marriage'?
thanks
A hooker is defined by the fact she sells sex, which makes it impossible to portray a hooker without using "sexuality." But I'm starting to repeat myself. This horse is about dead.
Impossible to portray, and impossible to conceive of, ...only for those void of any imagination.
Yes you're repeating yourself. Maybe you should stick to things you actually know about, ...filmmaking isn't one of them.
That's a good point. Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money. I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of any actor.
But . . . you have to draw the line somewhere. Like Ving Rhames (sp?). I don't care what role he plays or how much of a tough guy he trys to be, he will always be the guy who got raped in Pulp Fiction. :o
Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language
Jeff Johnson
8/8/2008 11:25:00
www.onenewsnow.com
Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.
The amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating "the right of same-sex couples to marry." Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown's editorializing is illegal.
"The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman," Chandler explains. "And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it."
Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to "political pressure" and "gave a biased and prejudicial summary" -- in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. "The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law," Chandler explains.
But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.
"In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects," wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. "The Attorney General's title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial."
The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley's decision.
"This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week," says Chandler.
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.
This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess? ::)
This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess? ::)
Actually the people who started the mess were the religious nutbags who initiated the proposition
lol. And all those nutbags who voted for it? lol . . .
::)
yep - those too
they should all mind their own fucking business and Focus on their own Families
Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds
Fifty-four percent of likely voters are against Prop. 8, with 40% supporting the measure. But when asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, respondents were evenly split.
By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:36 PM PDT, August 27, 2008
California voters remain closely divided on the concept of gay marriage, but a significant majority of likely voters oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.
Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.
Mark Baldassare, president of the policy institute, said the election probably will be close, in part because of the even split in the general attitude toward gay marriage, but also because those supporting Proposition 8 were more likely to describe the issue as important to them than were voters on the other side.
The polling, he said, "shows a deeply divided electorate."
Wednesday's poll was in line with previous surveys. Support for Proposition 8 has slipped slightly in the institute's poll since a survey last month that showed 51% of voters against and 42% in favor.
In other findings, the poll found:
* Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 48% to 39% among likely voters in the state -- a margin that was down six points since July, with most of the decline coming among self-described independents. The survey was taken before the Democratic convention began.
* An overwhelming majority, 84%, say the state's budget impasse is a serious problem, but likely voters were more closely divided on solutions. The largest group, 44%, favored a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while 38% would close the state deficit by cutting spending. A solution that relied mostly on increasing taxes drew only 8% support, while 4% would support borrowing money and running a deficit.
* On abortion, likely voters were divided 47% in favor, 44% opposed on Proposition 4, a measure that would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Voters rejected similar proposals in 2005 and 2006.
* Another ballot measure, on legislative redistricting, is drawing support from about four in 10 likely voters. Proposition 11, which is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts. The survey showed 39% in favor, 36% against and 25% undecided.
Campaign strategists frequently say ballot measures that begin the fall campaign with less than 50% support face long odds because propositions usually lose support as the campaign proceeds.
The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,047 likely voters between Aug. 12 and 19. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
That legal right has existed since May, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples have. That ruling overturned Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Protect Marriage coalition circulated petitions for Proposition 8 this spring in order to amend the Constitution and take the issue away from the courts. At the time, the petitions said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Earlier this summer, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown altered the ballot language, saying the change was necessary to accurately reflect the effect the measure would have in overturning the court's decision. The Protect Marriage coalition filed a lawsuit to block that change, but lost.
Both sides predicted an intense campaign between now and election day.
Supporters of Proposition 8 had raised more than $10.1 million as of 4 p.m. Wednesday. Opponents had raised more than $9.4 million.
Both sides were dependent on dollars from out of state, with opponents of the measure getting $4.9 million -- more than half of their money -- from outside of California. Proponents collected $3.8 million from outside the state.
Incredible. The men in black stike yet again.
And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do. If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you. Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century. ::)Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????
And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do. If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you. Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century. ::)
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????
BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.
I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.
My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????
Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.
BTW-No, Im not gay.
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????
BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.
I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.
My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????
Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.
BTW-No, Im not gay.
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????
BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.
I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.
My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????
Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.
BTW-No, Im not gay.
... but you can't fool all the people all the time. :)
Last time I checked, this amendment was actually up 47-42, according a more recent poll done on it. If the CA Supreme Court felt that this amendment was "unconstitutional", it makes no sense that the judges would allow it to be put on the ballot, in the first place.
The ruling went to the heart of the question of whether civil unions and marriage can be viewed as separate but equal institutions. In the majority opinion, Justice Palmer wrote that they could not be, because the difference between marriage and civil unions was not just that of nomenclature.
“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not.”
If you read the CA decision, this is, almost verbatim, lifted from it.
If it is good enough for CA it is good enough for CT. America tried "separate but equal" in the past and it didn't work out so well; one would think the country might have learned a lesson from that. ::)The perverse actions of the homo community has nothing to do with the Black struggle for equal rights in America. ::)
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness
I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8. Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men. Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?
As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[
Bay have you felt pressure to marry a woman in your life?
the video is a bit more powerful
Yes. When I was younger, I did. I got over it, but over the years, I have met quite a few who didn't get over it. They got married, many have kids, and they still have sex with men on the side. Over the years, I have been hit on by almost as many "straight" married guys as gay guys. I am sure this is true for most gay men.
There are even some married closeted guys on getbig. :-\
I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8. Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men. Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?
As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[
I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.
I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I came from a really messed up childhood so I see the traditional family as the ideal. I see a constant breakdown in values and morality in America and I think if I am honest with myself I fear that this is just another path down that road. Marriage is already treated a joke as is human life....
That said.... I think back on the men I mentioned before who I greatly respected, but disagreed with their lifestyle. I am conflicted in that I dont necessarily think its my place to say if they can or cannot have a civil union.
No, those women would have rather lived in a world where their husband HONORED THEIR MARRIAGE VOWS. Few, if any, would be fighting for polygamy, if these men committed adultery with women. Nor, would we be talking about pedastry, if these dudes started messing with children.
You don’t sound conflicted to me. You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law. Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.
That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions. It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true. Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not. I believe it in. For all people.
You don’t sound conflicted to me. You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law. Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.
That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions. It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true. Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not. I believe it in. For all people.
I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.
I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle.
I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.
Here is the thing. You have the same rights as I do under the constitution. The difference is that your sexual preference is men vs mine bieng woman. What this means then is you want special rights.
I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.
The question is are you looking for Validation that what you are doing is accepted or are merely seeking the same legal rights as a married hetero couple?
In California dont they have civil unions that already give the same rights as a married couple?
I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent. Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians. She was a proponent of gay marriage. I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it. I think her moral authority speaks for itself.
Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it. End of story.
Wrong! Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote. Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.
Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law. That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others. Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry. And that’s fine. People are free to hate anyone they want. But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that matter how long it takes.
I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order. Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime. :-*
I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent. Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians. She was a proponent of gay marriage. I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it. I think her moral authority speaks for itself.
Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it. End of story.
Wrong! Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote. Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.
Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law. That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others. Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry. And that’s fine. People are free to hate anyone they want. But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that matter how long it takes.
I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order. Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime. :-*
Interesting take. Then again, King's daughter, Bernice, has a completely different view. I saw her on TV once discussing this issue, and I believe she said something to the effect of her father did not take a bullet to sanction gay marriage. And Bernice's cousin, Alveda, appears to feel the same way.
well, maybe Bernice and Alveda should read up on King's right-hand man, Bayard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin) Rustin (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArustin.htm)
'Nuff said!
If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.
Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.
Hahaha, here go the blacks again acting like they were the only ones who have ever been oppressed and nobody else in history will ever feel their "pain" or their "suffering". What an absolute crock of self-deprecating bullshit.
Actually BF, safe to say most the convo around here about blacks isn't from us. If I was to get truly bored I could go through 5 pages of threads and show that. The ratio has to be an easy 10 to 1, people bring us up all the time, kinda creepy really.
Now I'm not gay...No, just a self loathing Jew. :D
No, just a self loathing Jew. :D
Lovely. ::) That kind of extremism isn't going to make selling this thing to the public any easier.Would you tell me how you feel about gay marriage?
Would you tell me how you feel about gay marriage?
Do you think it is the business of government to keep these people seeking marriage disenfranchised?
I'm opposed, just like the overwhelming majority of the voting public, state legislatures, and the U.S. House and Senate, Presidents Clinton (who signed the Defense of Marriage Act) and Bush. Even Obama claims to oppose homosexual marriage.Fair enough and it was the answer I expected. A good one. But like with separate but equal, which the country fully supported, this oppression will fall. I think you're right saying that it is doomed.
Marriage is the government's business, because it regulates marriage. Government has decided that marriage should be between one man and woman, like it has been since the institution started. The public does not want to redefine marriage. I do think it will happen one day, but for the time being, whenever it comes up for a vote, I'll be expressing my opinion at the ballot box (although we already voted to preserve traditional marriage here by 70 percent).
Fair enough and it was the answer I expected. A good one. But like with separate but equal, which the country fully supported, this oppression will fall. I think you're right saying that it is doomed.
I live in Connecticut. Interestingly enough, the state didn't fall into hell today. ::)
So your marriage license is safe? :)
Doc, my boy, I know you're in NY. It's just a stone's throw away if and when you and Junaids ever decide to take the next step in your relationship.
New York state recognizes marriages from other states. If you and your husband ever come upstate, pleas call. :)
That's a good thing. You and Junaids won't be forced to stay in CT.
Screw CT, I'm only willing to leave New York for someplace warm. Freezing my ass off already and there's no snow.
Fall is the best season of the year. Right when it starts getting crisp. Not freezing but crisp. Like high 30s. Nice fleece, see your breath, that kind of shit. Really wakes one up.
I want to be on a beach... drinking, smoking cigars and chilling. I hate being cold
Calm on Doc, black people can't swim.
I like the beach and this weather. I'm all indifferent to it. In another month or two when it's frigid and ugly as shit up here I'll like the beach weather more than I do now.
I had to put a racist comment in there, was getting too lovey dovey. Got to keep it real. ;)
Surely you and 'friend' will be fireside all winter, LOL!
Doc, the chances of me being gayer than you are incredibly slim. I'm not the guy who hangs out with 30-something year old Pakistani homosexuals I met on a bodybuilding forum. ;)
State high court interested in Prop. 8 suits
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
(11-13) 18:17 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.
Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.
They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.
The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.
"I think it's fair to infer that the court is looking at these (cases) very carefully," Krueger said. Usually, he said, when plaintiffs ask the state's high court to take up their case directly without first filing in a lower court, the justices dismiss the suit without asking the other side for a reply.
Krueger declined to say whether Brown's office would ask the court to dismiss the suits without further review. He noted, however, that Bill Lockyer, the attorney general when gay-rights advocates first challenged the marriage law, invited the state Supreme Court to review the issue in 2006 even after an appellate court had upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.
Although the court's request, issued Wednesday, did not mention any issues in the suits or state the justices' views, "it indicates that the Supreme Court sees the seriousness and immensity of the issue, and before it takes any action it wants to hear from Jerry Brown," said Irving Greines, an appellate lawyer in Los Angeles.
Greines filed papers Wednesday on behalf of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers supporting the legal challenges to Prop. 8 and urging the court to accept the suits for review. On Thursday, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute submitted a letter arguing that the court lacks authority to issue a stay that would suspend a voter-approved state constitutional amendment.
::)
"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation. But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."
MCWAY...I think you should dedicate your life to teaching the unenlightened the truth about the evils of homosexuality.
Then I hope one of your kids turns out gay so you can make his life miserable.
That would be like my saying I hope you dedicate your life to spreading atheism. Then, one of your kids grows up to be a minister.
It wouldn't happen and the analogy is a terrible one.
What would you do if one of your children came to you and told you he/she were gay? Would you get an exorcism performed of him/her?
So, now you can guarantee that, should you have children, they will remain atheists like you?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. If her son can do that, your son/daugther can too (unless you've set yourself to remain unmarried and childless).
Exorcisms are for demon-possesion, not homosexuality. What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.
It's doubtful (if I have children, for which I am not required to be married anyway) my kids would be Christians. They wouldn't be raised in the US, most likely secular Europe or some Asian country.
So I guess you would be telling your daughter that her having a girlfriend is a sin; that's great but you can't actually prevent her from having a girlfriend now can you?
What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.
what does that mean? that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?
if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out? what if they became active in the gay rights movement?
if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit? would you visit him/her in their home? would you allow their partner to visit? what about if they've been together for 10 years? if they have children by adoption or other means?
All evil sinfulness...don't you get it?
so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.
what does that mean? that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?
if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out? what if they became active in the gay rights movement?
if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit? would you visit him/her in their home? would you allow their partner to visit? what about if they've been together for 10 years? if they have children by adoption or other means?
so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.
:'(
How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?
the majority wanted to keep slavery. the majority didn't want women to vote. the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!). the majority wanted apartheid.
But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
the majority wanted to keep slavery. the majority didn't want women to vote. the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!). the majority wanted apartheid.
But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
the majority wanted to keep slavery. the majority didn't want women to vote. the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!). the majority wanted apartheid.
But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
Bay.
How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?
Serious question bro. ???
The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.” Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.” That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson understood very well that large numbers of people may easily be manipulated (for example by a slick talker, by advertisements, by religion, by dreams, by bigotry, by fear and other irrational impulses) into doing things, believing things, supporting actions, or passing laws that are hopelessly misguided. Simply because a majority of people believe we should do X does not mean that X is necessarily the right thing to do. History is filled with examples of large numbers of people (even a majority) being manipulated into doing something stupid or illegal. For example, the trauma of 9/11 and stoked fears of a mushroom cloud duped the USA into invading Iraq. 500 hundred billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, virtually every one now realizes that was a terrible mistake.
The idea that citizens should be treated equally is inscribed into the Constitution. Capricious public opinion—no matter how big the majority—cannot circumvent that. The judiciary was specifically created to ensure this. One of the great (and perhaps terrible) things about the principle of equality is that when legitimately applied, it will necessarily be applied to people who you may not want to have it. Too bad; either everyone has it or no one has it.
There have always been opponents of equality. When we look back in time at the people who opposed equal treatment under the law for various groups (blacks, women, Jews, the disabled, and on and on) we often ask ourselves, “who were those idiots and why were they so hopelessly ignorant?” Look around you: those people are still here!
If you could place a sample of the opponents of gay marriage into a time machine and deposit them in into 1860 what side of the abolition of slavery do you think they would be on? If you could deposit them into 1918 what side of women’s suffrage do you think they would be on? Legacy admissions (where if your parents or grandparents attended a school you would get favorable treatment when you applied) are still common at American universities. Did you know that legacy admission policies were originally designed to keep Jews out of the best colleges? If we take that time machine back to say 1900, the people who support Proposition 8 today would be the same people in favor of legacy admissions. They want to reserve benefits for themselves that other people do not have access to.
Over the years, these opponents have used fear, religion, pseudo-science, legitimate science, racism, sexism, jingoism, and other filters to explain why “those people” should not be treated equally. As I said, there have always been opponents of equality. Even if those opponents constitute a majority, their will does not supersede the Constitution or the Justices that police it.
The Constitution was here long before you (and your filters) came along; and it will be here long after you (and your filters) are gone.
The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.” Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.” That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson.
In what court decision have they applied the 14th Amendment to homosexual marriage?
That would be NONE!!!!
Again, see "Baker v. Nelson". A gay couple tried that in Minnesota about 5 years after "Loving v. Virginia". The state court ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not run afoul of the 14th amendment (or any other, for that matter).
When the couple tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, their case was dismissed on its merits and for "want of a substantial federal question". That basically means that the federal Court sided with the Minnesota court, and as such, the ruling was binding on all lower courts.
In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union, as California and 29 other states have done. The voters in CA are merely doing what they have every privilege and right to do in this matter.
What's really ironic is that the lawsuits now being filed by gay couples, trying to get Prop. 8 nullified, BETRAY the very arguments that BayGBM and others are trying to make.
They claim that gay "marriage" is a "civil right" and thus immune from the will of the majority. But, the suits being filed now are looking for a technicality to go in their favor. The issue is no longer whether the people have the right to vote for (or against) Prop. 8, but whether it's a simple majority of the electorate vs. a super majority of the electorate (and the Legislature, which gay activists know that Prop. 8 doesn't have).
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/17/daily20.html
Jerry Brown asks Supreme Court to review Prop. 8
Sacramento Business Journal
California Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday filed a brief with the California Supreme Court asking it to review and resolve the legal challenges surrounding Proposition 8.
The proposition, which was passed by voters Nov. 4 with a 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent margin, eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of the gay marriage ban have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure.
Brown on Monday urged the Supreme Court to review the measure to “ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California.” He said he would prefer an expedited resolution to a temporary stay on the measure to avoid confusion.
Brown said in a news release that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and Nov. 4 are valid will continue to be recognized by the state.
“The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here,” he wrote in a set of briefs filed with the court. “There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”
Thanks. That's what I thought. Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court. There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage. I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?
Thanks. That's what I thought. Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court. There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage. I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?
What's going to happen, however, when two men walk in to purchase a marriage license and one of them identifies himself as a woman?
that would be perjury. why do you keep bringing that up?
Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay'
(11-15) 17:59 PST LAS VEGAS, (AP) --
Comedian Wanda Sykes says the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in California has led to her be more outspoken about being gay.
"You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation. I didn't feel like I had to. I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life," Sykes told a crowd at a gay rights rally in Las Vegas on Saturday. "Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay. But that's the way people should be able to live their lives."
Sykes, who is known for her feisty and blunt style, said the passage of California's Proposition 8 made her feel like she was "attacked."
"Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."
Sykes' appearance at the Las Vegas rally was a surprise to organizers. She was in town performing at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.
Marriage isn't a religious institution it's a civil union since to get married you don't have to go to church, so why should religious values enter into it?
Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009
A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.
“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.
Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.
Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.
With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.
“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.
While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”
Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.
Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.
In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html
This is really long. Do you have the cliff notes? Are the Gays winning? ???
Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009
A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.
“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.
Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.
Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.
With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.
“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.
While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”
Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.
Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.
In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html
That is typical length for a newspaper article. Read a book lately? They are even longer?
I guess im not that interested. Yes or No Are the gays winning?? :'(
Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009
Des Moines, Iowa (AP) --
The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.
In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.
"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.
The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.
"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.
Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."
Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.
"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.
Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.
But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."
The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.
The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.
Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.
New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.
The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.
I'd hardly call yet another court-ordered edict, regard gay "marriage" a mainstreaming of the issue.
It appears that the pattern is much the same. Where gay "marriage" supporters have their success is in liberal/Democrat-controlled governments in which there's political red tape to get an amendment to the people for their vote.
If they want to see, if this ruling "repsents the mainstreaming" of gay "marriage", take it to the ballot and let the people have their say on the matter.
Who cares what other people want to do with their lives!? Why do you care?
Because, as has been shown in Massachusetts and in other places where gay “marriage” is legal (and even in some spots, where it’s not), the issue goes WAY beyond two homosexuals obtaining a license to mimic marriage.
In New Mexico, where "gay marriage" is not legal, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights commission after a husband-and-wife-owned photography company refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. The husband and wife asserted that the ceremony violated their Christian beliefs, but the commission disagreed, ruling earlier this year that the company discriminated and ordering them to pay $6,600 in attorneys' fees.
In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state last year agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197 (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197)
It’s about gay activists, imposing their lifestyle onto others (especially people of faith), while giving those people of faith, absolutely NO SAY in the matter, whatsoever. There was even a case in Sweden, where a pastor was thrown in jail, simply for stating that homosexuality was wrong. And, we’ve had near-cases of that happening right HERE in the USA.
The aforementioned scenarios doesn’t just affect the lives of the gay couples. If I (or any other person) can potentially be thrown in the slammer for merely stating my belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that goes WAY BEYOND simply "what other people do with their own lives". And cases like this are popping up left and right.
THAT is why I care.
Fair enough. Private institutions have the right to not take on certain clients and what have you. As an atheist I think it is retarded to believe the crap you believe but my libertarian principles come first. People have a right to say whatever they want to say. I don't believe in curtailing freedom of speech. If religious wackos want to believe that gays are 'evil' let them, just as when idiots want to deny the Holocaust ever happened. People should have the right to say whatever stupid things they want to and if some privately owned business doesn't want to take certain customers, it's the perogative of the owners. That's how it works in a free society.
PRECISELY!!!!
If you were to be chucked in jail for expressing your belief that there is no God, or forced to let people have a Bible study in your private pavillion (or other place of business) else be hammered with thousands of dollars (or Euros, in your case) in legal fees, you'd know exactly why this is of such concern.
As Liberty Cousel head, Matt Staver puts it, "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values."
Even if you DON'T believe in God or any other deity yet believe that gay "marriage" is wrong (Yes, there are people who fit that description), you could face the same hostile treatment.
Well, it is a pretty tricky question. Back in the earlier part of the 20th century, businesses and restaurants often refused black clients; where does one draw the line? ;)
One draws the line, when the issue becomes a constitutional breach. Over 36 years ago, the US Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Minnesota case (Baker v. Nelson) in which the MN court ruled that marriage laws, defining the institution as a union between a man and a woman, did not violate the 14th amendment. Two gay activists tried to use the Loving v. Virginia case (which eradicated the remaining laws preventing whites from marrying non-whites) to legalize gay "marriage" then.
When the gay activists tried to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, the appeal was dropped on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. In other words, it effectively agreed with Minnesota's court and thus was binding on all lower courts in the country.
That's why, when courts ruled that traditional marriage laws are "unconstitutional" (from a state perspective), the people can pass amendments to override their state courts, as most recently happened in California.
Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Staff Writer
NEW YORK, April 7 -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage, and the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory last week in Iowa's Supreme Court.
"I think we're going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner," said Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for the advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Each time there's an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow."
The issue is also advancing in New Hampshire, where it has passed the state House and is awaiting action by the Senate, as well as in Maine and New Jersey, which are debating same-sex marriage legislation.
New Jersey, which now allows civil unions for gay couples, is a particular prize for advocates because of its large size, and they are hoping for action this year after a commission in December recommended making marriage laws gender-neutral. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill.
New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and Gov. David Paterson has said he supports full marriage rights for same-sex couples. And sometime before early June, the California Supreme Court must decide whether Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the Golden State about five months after it became legal, was a valid use of the referendum power.
The action Tuesday in Vermont came swiftly, surprising even some of the proponents of gay marriage who were still celebrating their victory last Friday, when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could go ahead.
The two houses of Vermont's legislature voted last week for a same-sex marriage bill -- four votes short of a veto-overriding majority -- and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed it Monday. But Tuesday, several house members who voted against it last week switched sides to support the override, making gay marriage law.
The final vote was 100 to 49 to override the governor's veto. The initial vote last week was 94 to 52. Vermont has no mechanism for a citizen referendum to override the law.
"All of us are thrilled at the pace," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates for gay rights. "This is a great day."
With the Vermont vote, and the D.C. Council action, Chrisler said, "I think this is a very significant indicator of how the tide is turning in this country and folks recognize that this is about love and commitment." She added, "The arc of history is long but bends towards justice."
The Vermont vote Tuesday was particularly symbolic for activists because this is the state that nine years ago became the first to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples. Seen at the time as revolutionary, Vermont has in recent years seen other states surpass it by legalizing same-sex marriage outright.
"Vermont opened an important back door," Pizer said. "Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage."
Some 43 U.S. states have laws prohibiting gay marriages -- 29 of those with constitutional amendments specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- but many of those are being subjected to court challenge. Gay activists also hope to challenge the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city.
Tuesday's legislation in Washington was billed as an important milestone in gay rights, because it explicitly recognizes married couples from other states.
The initial council vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.
I believe the count is 30, as far as states with marriage amendments go. It appears this guy is ignoring Prop. 8 in California, simply because of the ongoing court case. But, from all preliminary reports, it appears that Prop. 8 will stand (barring some super-prosecutor, saving the day for the plaintiffs).
I also find the claim about the country turning the corner, with regards to gay "marriage", is rather spurious as best.
All of the states that have legalized gay "marriage" have two things in common:
1) They have liberal/far-left Legislature and/or courts.
2) They are in states, in which getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires going through political red tape.
A Time magainze article indicated that gay "marriage" proponents should temper their expectations, because it's still vastly unpopular within the country. It further indicated that, even with Iowa's unanimous court decision, the ruling would be REVERSED, if the people were able to vote on it, any time soon.
As we've seen in California, a mere six months after the court struck down Prop. 22 (and, in spite of 18,000 licenses being given to gay couples), the people voted for Prop. 8, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
So, claiming that the entire country has turned the corner on gay "marriage", when one simple amendment in any of those states would overturn the Legislature (or Court) ruling, isn't quite accurate.
I agree that the country hasn't turned the corner yet, but it's only a matter of time. We also have some issues the supreme court and/or Congress will have to decide, e.g., when a couple that gets married in Massachusetts tries to get their marriage recognized in one of the 30+ states that prohibit homosexual marriage, will the DOMA be deemed Constitutional?
That's been tried already. A lesbian couple "married" in Mass. tried to move to Florida and have the Sunshine State recognize it. A federal judge said nope. The state court didn't budge (and this was before Florida passed its amendment last year).
Plus, you have the issue, regarding "Baker vs. Nelson" back in 1972.
As mentioned earlier, the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the lower (MN) court that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates no constitutional amendments (It dismissed the appeal of two gay activists on its merits). States can define marriage as they see fit.
Some people would have you believe that gay "marriage" is an inevitable. But, activists on both sides of the equation would beg to differ. Again, the states where it's almost impossible to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot are where gay "marriage" is having the most success.
What happened with the Flordia case? Is it being appealed?
I'm one who does think it's inevitable. The entire discourse is changing. I know a guy here who was compared to Hitler because he didn't support the civil unions bill. :-\ In many circles it is almost impossible to oppose these alternative lifestyle choices without being labeled a bigot.
Also, it is much more difficult to argue that we should prevent homosexual, bisexual et al. marriage when those same groups are given the same status as our traditionally protected groups (race, religion, national origin, etc.). They are a protected class in our state law here. Obama will assuredly sign federal legislation doing the same thing if it gets to his desk. Marriage is the next logical step. It might take a while, but I really see it coming down the pike.
NOPE!! FL Supreme Court dismissed it and it's gone no further than that.
It could happen, if people who believe in traditional marriage get bullied into thinking they can't stop it. I don't fear any labels put on me, by gay "marriage" supporters. If the folks in CA, one of the most liberal states in this country, can vote for traditional marriage, that tells me that this is hardly a settled issue.
As for Obama, he has danced around this issue numerous times. How he actually feels depends on his audience.
I wasn't very clear, but regarding Obama I was referring to the legislation that will extend things like Title VII to GLBT people. I forget the name of the legislation, but it's not a marriage bill. If that is done, then it is harder to argue that those folks should be denied any "rights."
But you're right about whether it's settled today. If anything, the public has spoken decisively about preserving traditional marriage, including in Oregon where activists spent a lot of money and still lost.
Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?
Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.
Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?
Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.
I already addressed this: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=269708.25
You are welcome to go back to that thread and continue the discussion, or bury your head in the sand like you did when I presented you with the facts. :)
What's a fact? Three initiatives failed so that establishes that the majority of Americans are pro choice? Sorry. Not buying.
You didn't present any facts Beach... you're using the same argument I used here... but it is ok for you here, but not abortion.
As a matter of fact, you should go back and look at the thread... I presented you with actual fact and YOU buried your head.
See... That's called "ignoring".
lol. Whatever dude. Go back and read the thread, including the excerpts and links I posted.
Again... my fact is recent and relevant... 3 pro-life measures 2 of them in "red states"... None of them passed.
That's a fact... Sorry you don't like it.
Here is something that took me about a minute to find. What's obvious, if you actually read it, is states have placed a plethora of restrictions on abortion, including banning abortion after viability.
GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE
An Overview of Abortion Laws
STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF
As of
MARCH 1, 2009
BACKGROUND: Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states
have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what
circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. The following table highlights the major provisions of these state laws.
More detailed information can be found by selecting the table column headings in blue. Except where noted, the laws
are in effect, although they may not always be enforced.
HIGHLIGHTS:
Physician and Hospital Requirements: 38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19
states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 18 states require
the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.
Gestational Limits: 36 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or
health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability.
“Partial-Birth” Abortion: 15 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 4 of these laws apply
only to postviability abortions.
Public Funding: 17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid
enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when
federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In
defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.
Coverage by Private Insurance: 4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans to cases in which the
woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Additional abortion coverage is permitted
only if the woman purchases it at her own expense.
Refusal: 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 43 states allow
institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.
State-Mandated Counseling: 17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes
information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the
ability of a fetus to feel pain (8 states), long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states) or
information on the availability of ultrasound (6 states).
Waiting Periods: 24 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours,
between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed. 6 of these states have laws that effectively
require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.
Parental Involvement: 34 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion.
22 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 10 require that one or both parents be notified
and 2 states require both parental consent and notification.
I also looked at the three bills/initiatives that failed in November:
California Prop 4: parental notification
No - 6,111,260 - 52 percent
Yes - 5,599,878 - 48 percent
Colorado Amendment 48: human life from moment of conception
No - 1,605,978 - 73 percent
Yes - 585,561 - 27 percent
South Dakota Initiative 11: limit all abortions except for rape or health of mother
No - 206,488 - 55 percent
Yes - 167,536 - 45 percent
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
You cannot reasonably conclude that the California measure is part of a trend, when (a) it was narrowly defeated with well over 5 million people voting "yes" and (b) 34 states require some form of parental notification. The trend is clearly in favor of parental notification.
The Colorado amendment didn't attempt to ban or limit abortion, although that would have started the dominoes.
South Dakota's initiative was narrowly defeated and was pretty broad.
So, what I said is absolutely correct: "I would be more convinced if it was part of a trend in which every single proposed law restricting abortion in any way was defeated at the ballot box. That hasn't happened."
If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.
If you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry someone of the same sex. ;)
New York isn't very religions but we're beyond zealous when it comes to children's rights. Gay marriage will probably only have adverse effects on people stupid enough to adopt.
How so? Who cares what other people want to do? They're not hurtin anyone.
No Beach... The trend is people being pro-choice... Even your own quotes prove so... You just refuse to see it.
Abortion based measures in 2008... 3 pro-choice wins.
It's ok... You're in denial.
Yes tu. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
That's what one of my ex's used to say... Such a girl statement.
Maybe that's why she's your ex. :)
So you're not denying you act like a girl ???
Are you denying that your ex broke up with you because you repeat the same nonsense over and and over again, regardless of what the facts actually show?
(I'm actually responding to your toddler-like ad hominem comment by making one of my own.)
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.
Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.
"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."
Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.
On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.
"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.
Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.
"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.
Schmidt had previously expressed his personal support for gay marriage. Last month, he told the Washington Blade newspaper that he is in favor of legalizing it and that he voted against California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling that had legalized the unions in that state.
In making the case, Schmidt is putting himself at odds with the position of John McCain, whose 2008 campaign he effectively ran.
McCain rarely talked about same-sex marriage or other social issues, but when he did, he made clear he was in line with social conservatives in opposing same-sex marriage.
"Have no doubt about my commitment to the unique status and sanctity of marriage between man and woman," McCain said on the campaign trail.
McCain's daughter Meghan has become a vocal advocate in recent months for gay marriage, and is slated to participate in the Log Cabin Republican convention this weekend.
In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/ex-mccain-aide-to-call-for-gay-marriage-support/
Oh, YES IT CAN be argued. Again, see the cases I listed from that article from Baptist Press, namely about the couple fined over $6K for refusing to perform a lesbian "commit ceremony" at their wedding chapel in NEW MEXICO (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal).
If the GOP switches their position on same-sex "marriage", they will lose their conservative base, without which they have NO CHANCE of winning. As stated before, they may not always win with that base; but they WILL NOT WIN without it.
The GOP's losses have virtually nothing to do with this issue. Look at the last two presidental elections. Obama won California HANDS DOWN; yet Prop. 8 still passed. In fact, the tipping point (much to gay activists' chagrin) was Obama's most-easily locked up demographic: black voters.
Florida flipped from "red" to "blue"; yet Amendment 2 passed in the Sunshine state.
Going back to 2004, several "blue" states that Kerry won with relative ease (i.e. Michigan, Oregon) passed marriage amendments as well.
Therefore, I see no connection between the GOP's accepting gay "marriage" and future political success.
So you think the Christian right wing will just stop voting all together?
Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.
In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?
Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.
In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?
I think the point is that they will always get the right wing vote... If they can get some of the gay or more liberal vote, then their party can potentially return to prominence.
CNN Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage, but Those Under 35 Back It
May 05, 2009 11:06 AM ET
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
As a slew of states move to legalize gay marriage, a new CNN poll finds that most Americans still oppose it, though those under 35 are solidly for gay marriage legalization.
The poll finds that just 44 percent back gay marriage, compared with 58 percent of those under 35. The generational gap over the issue is striking: Only around 4 in 10 Americans ages 35 to 64 back gay marriage, and the number drops to 24 percent for those above age 65.
The numbers raise an important question about the strategy of the pro-gay marriage forces: Is their move to start legalizing gay marriage in many states far enough ahead of public opinion to provoke a serious backlash? Or, given the dramatic generational shift in public opinion on the issue, is their timing just right?
Read CNN's poll analysis here.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/05/cnn-poll-most-americans-oppose-gay-marriage-but-those-under-35-back-it.html
I think it's an age gap... Similarly to how interracial marriage was a taboo that became a non issue .
Younger people are always more accepting than the older.
Perhaps. Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.
Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.
It's just the way things happen as time passes.
No one cares about abortion anymore either... Well, except you old people... And as you old people die off... Well... You get the idea.
Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.
You forget that three states have overturned gay "marriage" after it was legalized: Alaska, Hawaii (Bum's home state) and California.3 more white trash states
3 more white trash states
Who never overturned women's right to vote or desegregation? Not following you. What do you mean?
Old people are by and large smart people. Definitely smarter than folks who haven't been around the block much. For many people, as they get older they realize how little they actually knew as a youngster. That was certainly the case for me. That's part of the reason I have so much respect for anyone older than me. They've often times been there, done that, made the mistakes, etc.
You forget that three states have overturned gay "marriage" after it was legalized: Alaska, Hawaii (Bum's home state) and California.
3 more white trash states
I don't think any of them have made the "mistake" as you put it of legalizing gay marriage... So I'm not sure how your statement makes any sense in this instance.
Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.
??? I don't understand this either.
I was asking you to clarify this comment:
What do you mean?
Perhaps. Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.
You said this:
My point was that if that was the case, then as the young folks got "smarter" as you put it and changed their mind, then we would have reverted back to women not being allowed to vote and civil rights would have been swept away.
Because the young people would have gotten "smarter" and seen the error of their ways.
Or am I misunderstanding what you're stating there... You seem to be saying that these young people make mistakes they regret as they get older when it comes to their vote, but I see no basis for you making that statement.
Diplomats’ Same-Sex Partners to Get Benefits
By MARK LANDLER
WASHINGTON — The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.
Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits.
“Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,” Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association.
“At bottom,” she said, “the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.”
A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, though he did not say when it would take effect.
Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.
Gay and lesbian diplomats have lobbied the State Department for these benefits for several years. Under current policy, they note, diplomats with domestic partners could be evacuated from a hazardous country by the American government while their partners were left behind.
The State Department had declined to provide some benefits to the partners of diplomats, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of same-sex unions.
Mrs. Clinton was asked about the issue in February at her first town-hall-style meeting with department employees. “I view this as an issue of workplace fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide,” she said, to applause.
Influential lawmakers also pushed for the changes — even drafting legislation requiring the State Department to offer these benefits — until Mrs. Clinton assured them that she would address the issue.
At a hearing last week on financing for the State Department, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, welcomed news of the planned change in policy. Mr. Berman, Democrat of California, introduced a former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who left the Foreign Service in 2007, citing unfair treatment of his partner, Alex Nevarez.
Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed the nation’s first openly gay ambassador, James C. Hormel, to serve in Luxembourg. Opposition by Republican senators blocked a vote on the appointment, leading Mr. Clinton to appoint him eventually during a Congressional recess in 1999.
Prop 8 upheld, but the 18000 marriages already performed will remain valid
Prop 8 upheld, but the 18000 marriages already performed will remain valid
We can just keep adding and deleting amendments every time we have an election.
that's been California for the past 30 years or so
that's been California for the past 30 years or so
This whole issue is undoubtedly headed to the US Supreme Court
I'm stunned. They got one right. :o
it took 20 years between the time the California Supreme Court overturned its miscegenation law and the time the US Supreme Court did it nationwide.
but in 1948 California didn't have ballot propositions.
Did they? It's entirely possible that grandfathering those couples may violate equal protection under the law.
Gays are not a separate race. It's a stupid comparison.
I haven't read the opinion, but at first blush I can understand why they upheld the existing "marriages." They were "legal" at the time they were performed.
Agree about the comparison. Stupid.
It counts on the listener being stupid, racist or both.
Gays are not a separate race. It's a stupid comparison.
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.
btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race
Race is innate. Sexual preference is not.
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.
btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.actually there are genetic differences between races, homo sapiens are one species but if you go further down the ladder homo sapiens can be genetically divided into racial differences.
btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race
I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.Actually your wrong holmes the majority of the thinking population understand that it has a genetic component to it but since its expressed in a behavior it becomes a choice...Its not 100% genetic like many ppl would have you believe.
Actually your wrong holmes the majority of the thinking population understand that it has a genetic component to it but since its expressed in a behavior it becomes a choice...Its not 100% genetic like many ppl would have you believe.
The comparison is valid but there doesn't even need to be a comparison.
The same CA Supreme Court first decided that not allowing gays to get married violated the Equal Protection Clause
A slim majority of voters later decided to take away that right and in essence over-ride the Equal Protection clause and the same CA Supreme Court decided it as valid to take away a previously recognized
right.
The whole thing is a mess
no one claims its 100% genetic. hormones in the womb seem to have a big impact.actually not but a couple of years ago that was the prevelant thought and to this day alot of ppl hold that theory as correct...so does a genetic propensity towards violence or addiction...
sexual orientation is innate. your sexual orientation remains whether you act on it or not.
I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.
actually there are genetic differences between races, homo sapiens are one species but if you go further down the ladder homo sapiens can be genetically divided into racial differences.
What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition.
I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.
In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.
The voters didn't over-ride the Equal Protection Clause. What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition. The Court made its ruling, based on how the CA constitution read at that time last year.
The only reason this thing is a "mess" is because the CA court foolishly decided to allow gay "marriages" to take place, before the outcome of Prop. 8 arrived from the ballot box. That, and the actions of AG Brown, convinced me that the intent was to skew public opinion to vote Prop. 8 down.
That way, the judges look rosy, no matter what. They backed so-called marriage equality, yet the people had their say at the ballot box.
I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.
In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.
original definition? a contract between two men (father of the bride and the future son-in-law), exchanging property (the bride for a dowry) ? that original definition?
the law doesn't work like that. the Supreme Court cannot rule on proposed laws, only existing laws.
yeah the voters did essentially over-ride the equal protection clause or a better word might created an exception on a previous ruling regarding the equal protection clause
again - the court first ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the equal protection clause.
That decicion preceded Prop 8.
Prior to May 2008, marriage in CA had one definition: A union between a man and a woman.
That definition is once again the standard, with a few exceptions, due to some foolish judicial actions.
Actually, Prop. 8 was submitted for the ballot BEFORE the court made its ruling. Regardless of how the court ruled, Prop. 8 was going to the ballot box for election day and, if passed, would either validate the court's upholding Prop. 22 or overturn the court's striking down of Prop. 22.
Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.just do away with the term marriage in terms of the government and make it strictly private and give everyone civil unions then we wont have to worry about it.
just do away with the term marriage in terms of the government and make it strictly private and give everyone civil unions then we wont have to worry about it.
Yes, this would work too; but there can't be any benefits. NO WELFARE.why not?
why not?
Per Wiki: The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check
The CA Supreme Court ruling was on May 15, 2008
Yes on 8's campaign literature suggests that Proposition 8 "is necessary to overturn [the] outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22," but the drive to put Proposition 8 on the ballot began on October 1, 2007, five months before oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court. Supporters of the measure submitted 1.1 million signatures to the Secretary of State's office on April 24, 2008. The measure needed 694,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure qualified on June 2, 2008.
http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html (http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html)
The court knew of the submission of those ballot and the likelihood that the 690,000+ signatures needed would be there. That's why I made the statement earlier.
Again, even if the court made the decision to strike down Prop. 22, the judges should have stayed the ruling until the result from the election. The fact that it qualified suggest that the court and/or AG had a chance to review the amendment for any supposed constitutional problems.
Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.
you can't think of any other reason why people might want to get married?
Freebies/welfare always create an incentive. This is why there is so much illegal immigration south of the border, for were the benefits not there there would be a massive reduction in motivation to cross the border. Get rid of the incentive and the problem automatically decreases. Simple as. Same issue with immigration in Europe. These are just examples. Marriage (gay or staight) is no different.true but there are alot of other incentives to get married, especially from a family standpoint or a raising a child standpoint I dont think the number of marriages would drop significantly if the government incentives where not there.
true but there are alot of other incentives to get married, especially from a family standpoint or a raising a child standpoint I dont think the number of marriages would drop significantly if the government incentives where not there.
Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.
Good. Let them do it. ;D Watch the numbers drop in droves. Believe me... ;)I doubt it like i said there are still alot of incentives not tied to government in marriage...
Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.Not at all the driving force behind the vast majority of marriage is to provide a secure enviroment to successfully produce offspring not governmental welfare which is why taking that away wouldnt diminish the numbers as much as you think i believe anyway...
Not at all the driving force behind the vast majority of marriage is to provide a secure enviroment to successfully produce offspring not governmental welfare which is why taking that away wouldnt diminish the numbers as much as you think i believe anyway...
Some religious people woudn't care but many other people would.would care about what?
would care about what?
Loss of entitlements.I think just about everybody would be upset about the loss of entitlements, religion would have nothing to do with it.
your own link say that it wasn't approved until June.
Why should the court delay a decision on a case before them just because a ballot measure might be on the ballot. That wouldn't be fair to the plaintiffs and it would possibly project a bias regarding the ballot measure.
BTW - who cares. It doesn't matter now anyway and it doesn't change the courts ruling in May of 2008
Clearly the most important issue facing America today...
No one made such a claim, genius. This may come as a shock to you. But, people can discuss MULTIPLE issues (hence the reason we have this particular forum).
Clearly the most important issue facing America today...
Apparently more important than the right to vote.
You're forgetting how many gays are on this site. :)
"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions. I thought their cause was just."
"It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."
- Ted Olson, uber-conservative, George W Bush's Solicitor General, argued Bush's case to the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore regarding Florida's ballots, wife was on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, that Ted Olson
The problem with that is the precedence set by the case, Baker v. Nelson from the 1970s. Gay activists tried that same trick, fresh off the Loving v. Virginia ruling. But, that didn't float.
I agree the lawsuit doesn't have much of a chance. The point of my posting was who's arguing for gay marriage. More and more conservatives are coming around to our side.
Most important issue in all politics.
Proof...look at the length of this thread... :-\
The thread's been around for over a year. OF COURSE, it's going to be long.
Because of the potential legal problems that can (and, in this case, DID) occur down the line. Much of this COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED by staying the ruling.
That's why I've maintained that this was the CA Court's (and AG Brown's) attempt to rig the election against Prop. 8
The May 2008 ruling is basically worthless, with a relatively few exceptions.
paranoid much?
Dick Cheney backs gay marriage
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, June 1, 2009
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.
"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.
Cheney spent most of his speech, and during the questions and answers that followed, defending the Bush administration's wartime policies . . .
*blink blink*
WTF
Did I just miss something completely... When did Cheney start saying anything that makes sense.
Is this guy running for president?
Don't kid yourself. He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary. He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family. And their grandchild born of Mary.
Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html
Weird. I wonder if Bush or Cheney read the Republican Party Platform in 2004 ( and I Cheneys older daughter worked on his campaign too)
Protecting Marriage
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
Don't kid yourself. He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary. He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family. And their grandchild born of Mary.
Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html
Kerry tried to use that against Cheney (and Bush) back then. However, that didn't fly.
didn't fly with people who are ok with hypocrisy
Funny..... The president believes marriage is between a man and women but gets a free pass because Bush and the economy sucks balls. He extends federal benefits to same sex couples, further abusing taxpayers in an already fucked up economy, and that's still not enough for people.
Apparently the quest to legitimize aberrant behavior is more important than anything else going on in the world.
What hypocrisy?
Cheney stated now, as he did back in 2004, that this is a state's issue. That particular year 13 states made their voices heard loud and clear. Since then, 13 more have done the same (most recently, California).
That's why we have 30 states that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that marrriage is a union between a man and a woman.
That's a strong word. Please clarify.
it's a convenient way of dodging the issue but if he really believes in equal rights for gays then he shouldn't run on a platform to actually restrict the rights of gays. That would be called hypocrisy
Group that spearheaded effort against Prop. 8 postpones push for amendment until 2012
Equality California says a delay until the presidential election year will aid fundraising in the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. Other groups want voters to decide issue in 2010.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Jessica Garrison
One of the state's largest gay rights groups announced Wednesday it will wait until 2012 to push for an amendment to the California Constitution permitting same-sex marriage, but other organizations with the same agenda insisted they want to bring the issue back to voters in 2010.
Leaders of Equality California, which spearheaded the campaign against Proposition 8, said they planned to wait until the next presidential election and released a road map for repealing the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.
"If we thought November 2010 was the best time to go, the time when we thought we could win back the freedom to marry, we would go . . . But we don't," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director.
In the analysis and plan titled "Winning Back Marriage Equality in California," the organization said it would wait until 2012 to allow more time for fundraising and outreach, among other reasons. Most of the group's top 100 donors to last year's No-on-8 campaign said they would be reluctant or unwilling to participate in a campaign in 2010.
Equality California estimates that a winning campaign would need between $30 million and $50 million.
Meanwhile, some organizations, including the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, which bills itself as a multi-issue advocacy group, have said they would try to bring an initiative to the ballot next year. The Courage Campaign sent an e-mail to its members Wednesday touting fundraising efforts that leaders say prove there is momentum in challenging the ban as soon as possible.
The e-mail said the group had raised $136,000 in the previous few days to "finance the research necessary" to go to the ballot in 2010.
"We're not going to let the calendar decide for us when we can win," said Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs. "This is an enormous issue for our members. A lot of our growth occurred in the post-Proposition 8 era. Our members have been adamant."
Opponents of same-sex marriage have said both dates are inappropriate, pointing out that California voters have twice in the last nine years said no to gay marriage.
Also Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered all parties in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 to resubmit their case management statements because the originals failed "to get down to the specifics of how we are going to proceed," according to a copy of the legal order.
Walker ordered that the new statements be submitted by Monday.
I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake.
You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it..
The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy.
You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012.
You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok. Let's get it on.
I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake.
You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it..
The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy.
You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012.
You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok. Let's get it on.
I seriously doubt the average American cares, Tre.
Also, they've been so bad lately that a lot of people have turned their backs (not in a gay way) on the cause.
Personally, I believe the actual challenge by gays should be to the (sorry, I can't remember the actual number and this is a guess) 18,000 or so marriages allowed to remain in effect. In my mind, it seems other gays were denied equal protection under the law.
He's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide the issue. So does Obama. But, as I've said, the BIG difference between the two is that Cheney would rather have the PEOPLE decide; whereas Obama wants state courts and left-winged Legislatures to do it.His daughter is gay but he has no position on the matter. The viability of gay marriage should be decided by the states.
Cheney is no more hypocritical than the Log Cabin Republicans are (who ALSO voted for Bush in 2004). Nor would he be any more hypocritical than John Kerry was. Kerry not only agreed that the states should decide, but he actually OPPOSED legalizing gay "marriage" in his very own home state (the one that started all this mess in this country).Log Cabin Reps are interesting. They are social/economic darwinists at the bottom of the food chain.
Lest you keep forgetting, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, by and large, believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why do you think that these marriage amendments (for the most part) keep passing by lopsided margins, even in "blue" states.Slave ownership, separate but equal and women as footstools were also popular ideas in the day.
...
His daughter is gay but he has no position on the matter. The viability of gay marriage should be decided by the states.
Those are two different matters. Cheney is dodging the issue by conflating the two separate matters-1. his personal view and 2. society's view.
Log Cabin Reps are interesting. They are social/economic darwinists at the bottom of the food chain.
I think they are masochistic fags.
How is Kerry acting hypocritically?
Slave ownership, separate but equal and women as footstools were also popular ideas in the day.
That's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide. Whether they say "yes" or "no" makes no difference. How does his personal view and society's view clash with WHO should decide the issue?You are conflating the issues as well.
That's the subject at hand, with regards to Cheney....WHO should decide, not WHAT the decision should be. And again, Cheney wants the people, not the courts or left-winged Legislature, to make the call.The courts have the final say on what the law is.
I hope you're not implying that they're "fags" now, because they're Republicans. Are you suggesting that all homosexuals should be Democrats? But, that would kill the stereotype that the GOP is just for mean ol' rich heterosexual white guys.I'm implying that they are like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.
I never claimed that Kerry was acting hypocritically (at least, not on this issue). His view mirrors that of Cheney: The states should decide their own marriage laws.Fine.
None of which has to do with defining the institution of marriage. There is no moral imperative to change the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, whatsoever.
You are conflating the issues as well.
Why can't the former most powerful man in the world answer a simple question as to what his opinion is of homosexual marriage?
Another great dodge would be, "I can't answer that question b/c I am not gay." He's not giving his opinion on the matter at hand - What is YOUR opinion on gay marriage Mr. Vice President.
The courts have the final say on what the law is.
I'm implying that they are like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.
I would think that it is a moral imperative to the gays who are denied the benefits of marriage.
I just don't see what you or society has to gain by denying these people the right to marry.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.
There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.
When was CHENEY the most powerful man in the world?Oh come on.
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."Even your explanation is as vague as his answer. "...there should be something..." Look, do you, personally, believe that gays should have the right to marry, Mr. Vice President?
How is that dodging the question? He believes that there should be something to accomodate homosexuals. But, ULTIMATELY, it's up to the states to decide the issue (one way or the other).
No, they don't. I refer you to what went down in California, less than a year ago.Yes, they do. Marbury v. Madison.
California's Supreme Court said that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was "unconstitutional". The people of California trumped that by modifying their state constitution. So that ruling of the CA court is moot. The same thing happened in Alaska and Hawaii. The people changed their constitution to clearly spell out marriage's definition, after their respective state courts ruled it "unconstitutional".Is this what you are referring to:
Lest, you forget, the majority of the states that passed marriage amendments did so PROACTIVELY, to keep their respective courts from doing what the courts in Mass., Iowa, California, Alaska, and Hawaii did. Those amendments are in place, and there's not a darn thing the state courts can do about it.The courts answer to constitutions; constitutions are ratified BY THE PEOPLE.What are you talking about?
Chickens about what? What Democratic presidental candidate came out and stated, point blank, that they support and believe in same-sex marriage? Obama? I DON'T THINK SO! Clinton? PLEASE!!! Kerry? GET REAL!!!Forgive me for not acknowledging the long, rich history of Republicans at the forefront of Gay rights.
If Republicans were the only one opposing gay "marriage", the amendments wouldn't be passing by an average of 68-32. The reason you have such lopsided margins is simple: The lion's share of folks on BOTH SIDES believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.They're not the only ones opposing gay marriage. They oppose gays. Homosexuality is an abomination for a Christian party in a Christian Nation.
Go back to 2004. At least, two "blue" states that Kerry had little problem winning passed marriage amendments. In 2008, my home state flipped from "red" to "blue". Yet, Amendment 2 passed. From a sheer numbers perspective, it passed easily, 62-38. But, by Florida's constitution, it barely made it, because (as of late 2006/early 2007) amendments must pass by a supermajority of 60%.Again, slavery, miscegenation and women's oppression were very popular in the day. Something natural and biblical about those things.
They're not denied the benefits or the "right" to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.Spare me your slippery slope bullshit. Marriage is a legal concept designed to establish a mode of property descension. All the religious crapola of one flesh and under god was added to that property concept.
There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.That's not what I asked. What does society gain by denying marriage to gays? I'm sorry, adult gays?
There's nothing lost by society either.
As far as the "definition of marriage." That is such a load of crap. Who determines definitions?
People.
It could easily say a union between two of legal age consenting individuals. Just because that's not the definition today does not mean that can not be the definition in the future.
Look at the word gay. It used to simply mean happy, now it means homosexual. Definitions change. For someone to talk about what a word is defined to prove how they are right is akin to saying "I know you are, but what am I." to prove your point.
Anyone who throws little kids in with their point is even more insane. Marriages are about of age consenting adults... That's pretty cut and dried.
It's not about kids, or animals or any other far reaching ridiculousness that people try to make it out to be and it never will be. Because we're talking about OF AGE CONSENTING ADULTS.
Oh come on.
Even your explanation is as vague as his answer. "...there should be something..." Look, do you, personally, believe that gays should have the right to marry, Mr. Vice President?
Yes, they do. Marbury v. Madison.
"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html
Is this what you are referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
How did the CA people change the CA constitution?
I don't know the full details of what happened in those states. To me, it doesn't matter how one couches ones bigotry under the incidents of law, wrong is wrong. And those dudes are wrong. Life, Liberty and Happiness for all....except the queers!
What are you talking about?
Forgive me for not acknowledging the long, rich history of Republicans at the forefront of Gay rights.
Are you serious? Clinton tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and the republicans put forth their full support. hahahha. Of course they didn't.
Obama is wrong about gay marriage.
They're not the only ones opposing gay marriage. They oppose gays. Homosexuality is an abomination for a Christian party in a Christian Nation.
They don't want to accomodate something that should be destroyed.
Again, slavery, miscegenation and women's oppression were very popular in the day. Something natural and biblical about those things.
Spare me your slippery slope bullshit. Marriage is a legal concept designed to establish a mode of property descension. All the religious crapola of one flesh and under god was added to that property concept.
That's not what I asked. What does society gain by denying marriage to gays? I'm sorry, adult gays?
That may not be a road on which the gays want to travel. As I said on another forum, the counter-challenge to that is those "marriages" should have never occured in the first placed. Based on California's constitution, the court's ruling in May 2008 isn't enough to make a de facto law. The Legislature or the electorate actually had to undertake the process and make a law, consistent with the court ruling.
If gays made the challenge and lost, those 18,000 "marriages" would be void, because they're unconstitutional. They might simply want to cut their losses and leave that alone.
Tre does bring up a good point about the majority issue. Back in 2006, the voters in my home state of Florida passed an amendment, requiring a supermajority of 60% for all future amendments to pass (I voted against that one). For all the press Prop. 8 received, FL's Amendment 2 ran more of a risk of not passing. But, in the end, Amendment 2 got over the hump, 62-38.
I'm not saying they should challenge the legitimacy of those marriages. My argument is that allowing those marriages to exist created a new class and deprived remaining gays of their 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) rights.
Wouldn't being forced to litigate 18,000 cases, win or lose, be better than people accepting that only 9000 gays had a legal right to be married in California?
Tre is probably right in that pushing now while there's momentum may cost less. That being said, he would probably not be so interested in the topic if not having married a Mormon once and is also willfully ignoring the gay communities intolerance towards anyone with differing views.
Also, stupid shit like Wanda Sykes' commercials, Miss California, a coach losing income for saying something about a 'gay dance', etc... and insulting language about miscegenation and gay being the new black polarizes people who don't have to care. It's becoming painfully evident that people are losing their right to disagree on this topic so all you really have to do is figure out what the backlash will be.
Good point, there.
I think they should be (collectively). But, if you're a gay "marriage" supporter or involved in one of those cases, you don't want to go there. CA's constitution states that a law needed to be created to support the CA Court's ruling, that struck down Prop. 22 (the previous marriage law). That didn't occur. There's only one marriage law now, and it clearly states that marriage is a 1M-1W union.
But, there is no momentum. As I said, in response to BayGBM, that flap was just PC speak for "we ain't got enough signatures".
The push for 2010 is due to the belief that there won't be no black folk at the polls (since they're the ones, cited with pushing Prop. 8 over the top).
As is often the case, gay activists are banking on low-voter turnout and apathy to help them win. But, voter apathy works both ways. Again, as strapped for cash as Cali is, few (if any) want to give gay activists $43 million to watch them lose again.
Plus, as stated elsewhere, the one demographic that gays brag are their biggest supporters are also known to be MIA, during non-presidental elections (the younger voters, sub-35).
Pushing for 2012, however, is quite strenuous as well. The black voters WILL be there to help Obama go for a second term. And, I don't see them changing their tune about gay "marriage" in just over 2 years. Plus, there's got to be a WHOOOOOOOOOOLE lot of apologizing from the white gay folk, after that infantile tirade by some of their ranks, following Prop. 8's passage.
There's one simple flaw. Blacks generally oppose gay marriage and culturally tend to be more conservative on certain issues than given credit for. I'm not saying blacks hate gays or some stupid shit like that. Blacks will defend a relative (gay or otherwise) to the death that doesn't mean they approve of the lifestyle itself.
I do find it amusing that people blame black voters for Prop 8 results with one breath and then compare themselves to them with another. :) It's politically convenient way of ignoring the majority's feelings on the matter but probably stops things from being discussed in a helpful manner.
People also ignore that Obama is not in favor of changing marriage's definition. I have no clue if it's an honest feeling or his being savvy enough politically to realize right-wingers would have picked better republican candidates for the last election. There's no way to tell because he's a politician and they're all liars. Only two things are certain; republicans had no desire to inherit this economy or end up with Hillary Clinton as president.
I would say that Obama is passively not in favor of gay “marriage”. He may oppose it personally. But, if the courts or some other entity pass it anyway, he’ll do little to stop them.
It’s funny indeed. The same gay activists who were blubbering about tolerance, acceptance, and civil rights were calling black people, “n*@&#)s” and other racial slurs, following Prop. 8 passage. Even black homosexuals weren’t immune from the wrath of their white brothers in gayness.
Bigotry and racism don't exclusively belong to whites.
Why people are unable to understand that simple fact is beyond me. :)
It simply shows that, were the shoe on the other foot, the oppressed would act like the oppressors.
Oh come on, yourself!!!I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
Since when is the VICE-PRESIDENT considered the most powerful man in the world?
Do you REEEAAAAAALLLY think that title applies to Joe Biden today?
I'm not the vice-president. Regardless, he gave his answer. And the fact remains that, regardless of his answer, he believes that the states should decide the issue, one way or the other.I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
So, your harping on his allegedly dodging the question is quite pointless.
Where in the world have you been, under a rock? THEY VOTED to pass Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that clearly defined marriage as union between one man and one woman. Prop. 8 was one of the biggest political issues in the news last year.Yes, I've been living under a rock. So the change to the constitution was to add, out of the fucking blue, that marriage is btn a man and a woman.
But, it's hardly an isolated case. As stated earlier, several states passed constituitonal amendments proactively, to keep the courts from doing what CA's court (as well as that of Mass. and other did).I'm certain in the applicable time, you'd say the same thing about slavery, miscegenation, and women as property. Your justification of democratic absolutism is applicable to those things as well.
The Judicial Department says what the law is......IN CONCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
Why do you think the liberal politicians in Mass. broke their necks trying to keep the people from voting on a marriage amendment there?
It's because the people's voice is the final say. If they amend their consitutition to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union, the Mass. Supreme Court's verdict gets scrapped.
Wrong again! This has nothing to do with bigotry, something liberals love to scream, every time they don't get their way regarding certain social issues.What's a bigot?
Again, where have you been? Constitutional amendment have been passing in states since (at the very least 2004). Many of them were done proactively, after the Mass. verdict that struck down its marriage laws. Simply put, those other states weren't going to wait for 4 judges to decide that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union was "unconstitutional". They amended their constitutions to spell it out, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, how marriage is to be defined.You certainly put yourself out to make sure gays are treated like second class citizens.
I made no such claim that they did, genius. The point, which you clearly missed, is that your inference that homosexuals shouldn't be Republicans is a stupid one, to say the least.'Genius'....Hey, I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.
Hahaha, yourself, Einstein! I never made the claim that Republicans supported Clinton's efforts. Are you smoking that stuff?Again, in reference to republicans and log cabin freaks.
Says who?Says me.
The GOP isn't necessarily a Christian party. It listens to Christian voters for the same reason that Democrats listen to far-left liberal voters: THEY HELP GET THE POLITICIANS ELECTED.I think your points are an indictment of your honesty. You're right. The religious right that runs that party is a mix of religions. What was I thinking?
The Democrats can't win without the "liberal left"; the Republicans can't win without the "religious right".Sure thing.
Wrong again, Decker.I made those points in reference to those ugly chapters in American history.
One, miscegenation was never an issue, according to Scripture, as Israel was NEVER BANNED from intermarrying people, based on race
Two, your women's oppression spiel is equally as laughable. Any study of ANE culture shows that the laws of the Bible were extremely revolutionary, regarding the treatment of women. They could vote, be judges and hold certain political offices. They were allowed to inherit property (a rarity in ancient society), and, in legal cases (unlike their neighbors) women were presumed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (sound familiar).
Three, the "slavery" thing is yet another misnomer. What the Bible called "slavery" and what we've come to know as such (i.e. chattel slavery) are hardly the same issue.
Lost in all of this, none of that saves your pitiful rationale to justify gay "marriage" one bit.Pitiful? No wonder your thrown for a loop here. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is nowhere to be found in your book of fables, the Bible.
Spare me your "property concept" BS, which is again little more than a pathetic attempt to find feeble justification for gay "marriage". Were that even remotely the case, that still doesn't change the fact that no moral imperative exists to redefine marriage to accomodate homosexuals. Otherwise, you have to redefine it to accompany those other folks, from that "slippery slope".Spare you from historical fact? Your psychological defense mechanisms are more elaborate than the US tax code.
As far as I can tell nothing. Of course, it doesn't NEED to gain anything, in order for marriage to keep its 1M-1W definition. Nor does society gain anything by altering the definition to please gays....So society's gain is keeping gays as second class citizens.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
Yes, I've been living under a rock. So the change to the constitution was to add, out of the fucking blue, that marriage is btn a man and a woman.
Great.
I'm certain in the applicable time, you'd say the same thing about slavery, miscegenation, and women as property. Your justification of democratic absolutism is applicable to those things as well.
Remember, the essence of democracy is the lynch mob.
What's a bigot?
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
You've stated that b/c of your religious prejudice, gays shouldn't marry. You don't oppose gay marriage on the basis of any credible fact. You oppose it on the grounds that you hold the belief that a book written by sheepherders is the word of God and that word is 'death' to fags.
You and your ilk are textbook bigots. Tell me why you are not.
You certainly put yourself out to make sure gays are treated like second class citizens.
I have no such stake in the matter other than to point out the hurtful and hateful basis of your actions and perspective.
'Genius'....Hey, I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.
I stated that log cabin republicans were like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.
You misread that as me calling someone a chicken/coward. I stayed with the meme correctly. You showed that your attention span is limited.
Again, in reference to republicans and log cabin freaks.
Says me.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty. You're right. The religious right that runs that party is a mix of religions. What was I thinking?
I made those points in reference to those ugly chapters in American history.
Then I opined that those bigotries sounded biblical. As usual you go overboard to intoxicate your mind so that the perfection of the Bible remains intact in your bigoted world-view.
But since we're here, Christian uberman Jerry Falwell beat the drum for miscegenation. Billy Graham railed against Jews...Let's face it, anything Christian south of the Mason/Dixon line was pro-slavery miscegenation.
Your protestations about women are insane. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) That made a proud moment in our country's history - Salem witch trials. Even Sarah Palin is a witch.
Why is that woman still alive?
Here's a link to for access to 200 more biblical quotes that treat women as sex slaves, and property.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php
Pitiful? No wonder your thrown for a loop here. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is nowhere to be found in your book of fables, the Bible.
Spare you from historical fact? Your psychological defense mechanisms are more elaborate than the US tax code.
So society's gain is keeping gays as second class citizens.
I think your points are an indictment of lack of sleep or heavy narcotic use. Again, when was Cheney or any other VP ever considered to be the most powerful man in the world? The PRESIDENT is often considered to be that, but not the VP.Yes I remember the most powerful man on the planet - Bush- requiring Cheney to hold his hand while testifying before the 9/11 commission. The world's most powerful man couldn't be trusted to give a recount of his own deeds without the weak VP acting as his handler.
NOOOOOOOO!!!! California's law has always been that marriage is between a man and a woman, until the CA court's ruling in 2008, deeming Prop. 22 (a stronger enforcement of a previous marriage law) as "unconstitutional". To paraphrease Matt Staver from Liberty Counsel, all the voters did was restore the definition of marriage in California to what it had always been (since the state's existence) until that ruling.
PLEASE!!! Every time the people vote against some bone-headed liberal idea, all of a sudden they're listed as being a mob, just like the folks protesting ObamaCare.Those are 3 forms of oppression--just like your infatuation with keeping homos from marrying.
It's always "mob rule", when you lose on an issue. And, once again, slavery, miscegenation, and women being used as property have nothing to do with the subject at hand, notwithstanding that the people's voice played a role in ending that as well.
For starters, I'm not intolerantly devoted to my own opinions. And my religious beliefs are no more "prejudice" than your anti-religious/secular beliefs are.I'm not using my beliefs to choke out the opportunities of other people. You are doing just that.
Furthermore, your blurb about the Bible being written by sheepherders simply mirrors your own "prejudice" and flat-out buffoonery on the matter.Oh I've had an honors seminar or two on the Bible as literature and I'm aware of the different authors. Sheepherders...who wrote the Torah? A sheepherder.
I do nothing of the sort. If asked to vote on an issue, I simply vote "yes" or "no". The fact that you or any other gay "marriage" supporter doens't like is neither my problem not my concern.This is a political forum. I can comment anything in it-including your religiously insane inspired condemnation of gays.
If you have no stake in the matter, then quit blubbering about it and find a new hobby.
Again, what are you smoking? I made no indication that you were calling the Log Cabin Republicans cowards. What I said was simply how stupid your take is that somehow homosexuals can't or shouldn't be Republicans.You should toke up. It might help you relax. You could crush diamonds in your colon b/c your so uptight.
Again, lay off the weed!! Your referring to Log Cabin Republicans as "freaks", simply because they are Republicans and gay is as dumb now as it was then,
Few will accuse you of "thinking", when it comes to posting this mess. What I said, O-ye-that-hath-trouble-reading, is that the GOP listens to evangelical Christian voters, BECAUSE THAT BLOCK HELPS THEM WIN ELECTIONS.(http://thevinylvillage.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/church_lady.jpg)
Both miscegenation and anti-Semitism are wrong, per Biblical standards. And, lest that memory of yours go south, BOTH changed their tunes, when learning that such didn't agree with Scripture.
Few things are more comical than some Bible skeptic, boneheadedly posting verses, with nary the foggiest clue of the context in which it was written.
One, this verse in reference to a particular group of women who were being taught false thing about the Christian faith and were erroenously teaching others. Paul addressed this issue to them and them alone..(http://thevinylvillage.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/church_lady.jpg)Paul was as crazy as you.
Two, O factually-deprived one, Paul was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in part, BY A WOMAN: Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquilla. And he credits his start in the faith with what he learned from her.
Acts 18:26, And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Three, in Romans 16, Paul lists a number of women who have helped him in the ministry (almost half the people he thanks are women): Mary, the aforementioned Priscilla, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, to name a few
Romans 16:1-4, I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you, for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.(http://thevinylvillage.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/church_lady.jpg)
Luke 2:36, And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity.(http://thevinylvillage.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/church_lady.jpg)
And, of course, there's Deborah, who ruled over Israel as a judge.
Judges 4:4-5, And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
Here's a hint: When people come to a woman for judgment, she's giving them INSTRUCTION.
...
It's safe to say that the authors of this thread simply didn't do their homework, making mindnumbingly stupid generalizations and accusations, easily shown to be false and inaccurate. Of course, that won't stop folks like Decker from using such tripe. But that's another issue, altogether.I think you are clinically insane.
Wrong again!! With all societies, there are laws and rules and penalties for violating such. Your pitiful lack of understanding such holds no bearing on the matter.What does that have to do with you stomping on someone elses right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
What you've posted and historical fact are about as close as Alaska and Florida.You live in a fantasy world and you oppress others b/c of your derangement.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as those folks from that silly link you posted. One more time: "As far as I can tell nothing. Of course, it doesn't NEED to gain anything, in order for marriage to keep its 1M-1W definition. Nor does society gain anything by altering the definition to please gays"
In other words, society gains nothing and loses nothing, by keeping marriage's definition as that between a man and a woman.
I know my last post was a bit long. But, I had to address the whole women thing.(http://thevinylvillage.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/church_lady.jpg)
For more information, refuting the wild claims of Decker's "Freedom from Religion Foundation" link, check out this site:
Women in the Heart of God
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fempush.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fempush.html)
Edit – I’m sorry!! But, after reading the FFRF link again, I just can't resist addressing more of this utter buffonery.
Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child" - GIVE ME A BREAK!!! In Matt. 24, the disciples are asking what are the signs of Jesus' return. Jesus talks about the impending destruction that is to come, that will affect EVERYONE. Verse 19 is but a small sample of that. This is hardly a curse on women but a statement that the destruction will hit men and women alike.
The "Freedom from Religion" boys are free of decent eyesight. But, it gets better.
1 Tim 2:11-14 "Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless"I already addressed the first half of this mess; as for the second half...... The verse said Adam was not deceived, which is true. He wasn't deceived. He deliberately disobeyed God. And, as the Bible clearly indicates, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". Adam "blameless"? I DON'T THINK SO.
Deut. 21:11-14 "Rape manual" Yet another kneeslapper!!!
What part of "WIFE" don't these sense-starved skeptics seem to understand? Furthermore, who waits 30-days to rape somebody. The rules are about MARRIAGE a foreign girl and there are laws that clearly indicate that the husband can't just do whatever the heck he wants.
Yes I remember the most powerful man on the planet - Bush- requiring Cheney to hold his hand while testifying before the 9/11 commission. The world's most powerful man couldn't be trusted to give a recount of his own deeds without the weak VP acting as his handler.
So the codification of common law is the culprit.
Those are 3 forms of oppression--just like your infatuation with keeping homos from marrying.
I'm not using my beliefs to choke out the opportunities of other people. You are doing just that.
Oh I've had an honors seminar or two on the Bible as literature and I'm aware of the different authors. Sheepherders...who wrote the Torah? A sheepherder.
This is a political forum. I can comment anything in it-including your religiously insane inspired condemnation of gays.
You should toke up. It might help you relax. You could crush diamonds in your colon b/c your so uptight.
Now why don't you go play Church lady with some disadvantaged inner-city youths instead of stomping on the rights of gay people?
Paul was as crazy as you.
Not to mention the minor fact that women worked as prophetessed, such as Anna, who saw Jesus Christ as an infant in the temple of Jerusalem.
I think you are clinically insane.
You can read into your Biblical quotes anything buttresses your festering insanity.
What does that have to do with you stomping on someone elses right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Your religious insanity is hurting other people.
Your religious insanity depends on DEMONS, DEVIL, GHOSTS, GIANTS, TALKING SNAKES, ANGELS, ZOMBIES, DEMONIC POSSESSION, CANNIBALISM.
Do you wash yourself in the blood of christ?
Do you believe that there is a magic after-life where you will live forever after you are dead?
MCWAY BELIEVES THESE THINGS EXIST AND AFFECT OUR DAILY LIVES
You live in a fantasy world and you oppress others b/c of your derangement.
That's a well structured rebuttal. "I'm not a bigot b/c I'm not."
My "infatuation", as you so erroneously call it, is neither that nor oppression, despite your silly claims to the contrary.
Actually, by your cracked standards, you do use your beliefs to "choke out the opportunities for other people", particularly when it comes to certain issues. Do the words, "school vouchers" ring a bell?Apples and Oranges. But I'll indulge. Public schools must teach all students. Private Schools can select the cream of the crop.
One man didn't write the entire Torah. Some of the books were, in fact, written by one. That would be Moses, writing the Pentateuch. Of course, he was also a former prince of Egypt and a learned man. Of course, your sheepherder dig was a feeble attempt to paint the Biblical authors as ignorant.Your point is feeble. Sheep Herder....Shepherd.
Nobody said you couldn't. But, you made the claim that you had no say in it. So, find a new hobby, instead of continuing your skeptically insane inspired blubbering about all thing religious and the whimpering about the American people keeping marriage's definition as a union between a man and a woman.Such a saucy mouth for a forgiving Christian.
If there's one thing I am is relaxed. It takes little stress or strain to address the continued silliness, presented by your whiny (and often pointless) posts.You are one defensive slim jim.
No, thanks. I don't need to play a church lady. Plus, I already help inner-city youth, some of which have stayed in my home. Of course, none of that is germaine to your incessant whining, because I and other Americans vote on marriage amendments.You don't 'play' the church lady.
It's appears that, since your silly quips about Paul and his supposed oppresion of women have been exposed for the Grade A foolishness that it is, your recourse is now to post stupid pictures....Yes that was quite a job of cutnpaste you've done.
....You're a smart guy who is a religious fanatic.
Canada has gay marriage, socialized medicine and essentially decriminalized pot.
Surely they're doomed
That's a well structured rebuttal. "I'm not a bigot b/c I'm not."
Apples and Oranges. But I'll indulge. Public schools must teach all students. Private Schools can select the cream of the crop.
You support elitest education?
Your point is feeble. Sheep Herder....Shepherd.
Such a saucy mouth for a forgiving Christian.
Other than your intellectual infirmities and bizarre religious beliefs, you have no reason to keep the gay people down do you?
You don't 'play' the church lady.
You are the Church Lady.
Yes that was quite a job of cutnpaste you've done.
Tell you what. I'll be back from vacation on monday. I'll start a thread in the religion section and we can have a textual throwdown.
Then we'll see what you're made of. You still haven't adequately addressed the fact that your Christian religion is decadent. I've pointed out a good thing about it but you can't seem to admit the bad.
You're a smart guy who is a religious fanatic.
You put your religion over people.
Now here's one for the road:
Apples and Oranges. But I'll indulge. Public schools must teach all students. Private Schools can select the cream of the crop.
You support elitest education?
I'm a big proponent of 'strong' public education....that is, we should absolutely provide every one of our kids the best possible education. Sounds cliché, I know, but this is an area where we cannot fail.
That being said, if parents have the ability to afford a private education for their kids that is better than what they'd get in the public schools, then they absolutely have the right to have their children privately educated.
Everything cannot be equal, nor should everything be equal...otherwise, no one would have anything to strive for.
If this means that I support 'elitist education', then I can accept that.
I'm a big proponent of 'strong' public education....that is, we should absolutely provide every one of our kids the best possible education. Sounds cliché, I know, but this is an area where we cannot fail.
That being said, if parents have the ability to afford a private education for their kids that is better than what they'd get in the public schools, then they absolutely have the right to have their children privately educated.
Everything cannot be equal, nor should everything be equal...otherwise, no one would have anything to strive for.
If this means that I support 'elitist education', then I can accept that.
You're essentially saying people only have a right to what they can afford. :)
whens the bill for males who want to go into female locker rooms and change in there going to get passed?
Calif governor signs gay marriage recognition bill
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill recognizing gay marriages sanctioned in other states during the nearly five months such unions were legal in California.
Schwarzenegger says the action is consistent with a state Supreme Court ruling upholding the marriages of same-sex couples who tied the knot in California before voters approved Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment passed in November that limits marriage to a man and a woman.
The bill signed by the governor late Sunday also says gay and lesbian couples who were married in other states after Proposition 8's passage have the same rights and benefits that California grants domestic partners.
The bill was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco.
It appears that Arnold is desperate for supporters, considering his near-rock-bottom approval ratings. When his ratings were high, he vetoed TWO gay "marriage" bills, saying that the issue should be settled by the people.Yep. Goes to show that most politicians will do anything to get a vote. The President is trying to appease the gay community now as he was the keynote speaker of the Human Rights Campaign last week. And now he's taking it a step further by nominating Chai R. Feldblum as the chairman for the EEOC. Check out her philosophy:
Yep. Goes to show that most politicians will do anything to get a vote. The President is trying to appease the gay community now as he was the keynote speaker of the Human Rights Campaign last week. And now he's taking it a step further by nominating Chai R. Feldblum as the chairman for the EEOC. Check out her philosophy:
It appears that Arnold is desperate for supporters, considering his near-rock-bottom approval ratings. When his ratings were high, he vetoed TWO gay "marriage" bills, saying that the issue should be settled by the people.
All politicians are whores, MC. Every last one of them.
The above being true, whatever harm that comes from recognizing out of state marriages is negligible.... until California residents start getting married in other states en-masse and demanding recognition. :)
New York recognizes out of state marriages. I haven't seen any negative effects but really don't closely follow most politics.
I guess Arnold just got another pimp.
And the worst part of all, for me....MY BIRTHDAY IS May 22nd.
I may need some counseling, after this one.
when is the rally for opposite sex locker rooms? ::)
when is the rally for opposite sex locker rooms? ::)
when everyones married
Nasty. Completely disgusting.
What'd else do you expect from left-winged governments, who pass such things without letting the people have a voice in the matter?
Not to mention the Education Czar Jennings.
As far as CA and gay marraige, its a perfect example of why this entire country is falling apart. We spend tons of time, money, and effort on bs like this while ignoring the barbarians at the gates and fiscal ruin the welfare state guarantees, just like Rome.
Not to mention the Education Czar Jennings.
As far as CA and gay marraige, its a perfect example of why this entire country is falling apart. We spend tons of time, money, and effort on bs like this while ignoring the barbarians at the gates and fiscal ruin the welfare state guarantees, just like Rome.
The religious nutjobs like the mormons seem to be the ones spending the most money. :-X
Yes because money is more important than rights for citizens. What are you a slave owner from the 1800's.
The religious nutjobs like the mormons seem to be the ones spending the most money. :-X
Yes because money is more important than rights for citizens. What are you a slave owner from the 1800's.
Yes because being a slave and being gay exactly the same ::)
Oh really??
Last time I checked, in California, the No on 8 campaign spend MORE money than those who supported the marriage amendment ($43 million to $40 million).
Check last year's "People's Veto" on Maine's gay "marriage" law (Amendment 1). Final numbers: No on 1 - $4 million; Yes on 1 - $2.6 million.
And, in Florida, the claim goes that Amendment 2 opponents spend THREE TIMES as much money as Amendment 2 supporters.
Yet, despite all that spending, gay "marriage" supporters LOST in all three ballot races.
Oh yes please take everything in the most literal sense possible.
Well then when did marriage become a right? You are the one that said the "rights" of citizens not me
You can only delay the inevitable, bible thumper. :D
Since marriage came with certain legal rights and privileges that are denied to another person based on sexuality. That's when it became a rights issue.
It is that precise mentality that has cost supporters of gay "marriage" dearly.
What went down in California in 2008, in Maine last year (as well as New York) has put a KABOSH to the long-touted yet tired canard from certain liberals, that gay "marriage" is inevitable.
Notice the pattern here: EVERYWHERE gay "marriage" has been legalized has been a city, state, or country with a far-left government, which keeps the people from voting on this issue.
Yet, when the people's voice get heard via the ballot box, gay "marriage" goes down in flames, as has happened THIRTY-ONE TIMES in the USA.
Besides, you claimed that the "religious nutjobs" were spending the most money. That's not the case (at least not in FL, CA, and ME). Gay "marriage" supporters OUTSPENT their opponents but LOST.
It is that precise mentality that has cost supporters of gay "marriage" dearly.
What went down in California in 2008, in Maine last year (as well as New York) has put a KABOSH to the long-touted yet tired canard from certain liberals, that gay "marriage" is inevitable.
Notice the pattern here: EVERYWHERE gay "marriage" has been legalized has been a city, state, or country with a far-left government, which keeps the people from voting on this issue.
Yet, when the people's voice get heard via the ballot box, gay "marriage" goes down in flames, as has happened THIRTY-ONE TIMES in the USA.
My state legalized gay marriage and you know what, no one gives a shit. Haven't seen any rallies or even ran into any people who had anything to say about. Nor has the state exploded and hellfire rained down upon our heathen heads.
Anything to remove the tentacles you religious nutjobs have attached to everything. Separation of church and state!
My state legalized gay marriage and you know what, no one gives a shit. Haven't seen any rallies or even ran into any people who had anything to say about. Nor has the state exploded and hellfire rained down upon our heathen heads.
Anything to remove the tentacles you religious nutjobs have attached to everything. Separation of church and state!
Before you use the "seperation of church and state" argument you should have a clue what the constitution actually says about that. It was put in place to prevent a church of America and or you from being executed for praying to a tree if you so choose.
EXACTLY!!!
That reminds me of what I said about a week or two ago. I don't see any of these "separation of church and state" folks (or atheists, for that matter) banging down the doors of their bosses, to give their Christmas bonuses back.
Or, that they be put to work on Christmas Day......Or, that they be docked a day's pay for taking 12/25 off.
Convenient how it is not a problem when they get some benefit from it
I thought the funniest thing about the CA vote was that it was largely defeated due to the huge minority vote for Obama that came out for the first time.
The left wing crazies were going out of their minds trying not to get tied up in their own racist knots and pointing the finger at blacks and hispanics for the outcome of that vote.
Before you use the "seperation of church and state" agrument you should have a clue what the constitution actually says about that. It was put in place to prevent a church of America and or you from being executed for praying to a tree if you so choose.
That's one way to look at it. I look at the religions as having their claws in just about everything that goes on in this country when they shouldn't.
One way of looking at it? Perhaps you need a refresher on the constitution. And what exactly do the religions have their claws into?
That's one way to look at it. I look at the religions as having their claws in just about everything that goes on in this country when they shouldn't.
Again, the church is to be the conscience of the state, not its master not its slave.
Our politics are based on what we believe to be right or wrong. And guess what shapes that in this and other socieities......RELIGION!!
What do they have their claws into? Marriage and abortion, for one. ::)
What do they have their claws into? Marriage and abortion, for one. ::)
Marriage is a joke. It has been bastardized to the point that it's commonplace for people to marry on a whim and divorce three months later. Yet gays shouldn't be afforded that right because of this religious notion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. What a waste. Just a game being played by the religious nutjobs to distract everyone from what really matters.
Same goes for abortion.
My life has not been affected in a single way since gay marriages started in my state. The fact that people have enough time on their hands to worry about who someone else marries is ridiculous.
And, who made you the arbitrater as to what "really matters" vs. what doesn't?
That's why we have elections, referendums, and state constitutional amendments. It's so that WE, the people, NOT a handful of folks like you, determine what "really matters".
Who made religious conservatives the ones who decide who can get married and who couldn't? I didn't know you guys picked what rights someone was afforded.
Who made religious conservatives the ones who decide who can get married and who couldn't? I didn't know you guys picked what rights someone was afforded. As long as married couples are given rights that gays can't get it's a problem.
These religions crack me up. Lecturing others on who they can and can't marry while their priests are pedophiles and they churn out as many as divorces as marriages.
Marriage is so sacred. ::)
If you're so down on it, why are you wailing about the fact that, for all the other faults and shortcomings of those folks, this is one line that they (by and large) will not cross?
Either marriage is sacred or it's not. If it's not, your complaints about people preserving its one-man-one-woman definition are quite pointless (to say nothing of silly).
What do they have their claws into? Marriage and abortion, for one. ::)
Marriage is a joke. It has been bastardized to the point that it's commonplace for people to marry on a whim and divorce three months later. Yet gays shouldn't be afforded that right because of this religious notion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. What a waste. Just a game being played by the religious nutjobs to distract everyone from what really matters.
Same goes for abortion.
My life has not been affected in a single way since gay marriages started in my state. The fact that people have enough time on their hands to worry about who someone else marries is ridiculous.
No, they're pretty useful actually. Religious conservatives hang onto this notion of marriage being this sacred concept. That it's special for people to get married when, as proven time and time again, that is hardly the case. People marrying and divorcing multiple times in their lives, engaging in extramarital affairs and the like only show that it's a joke. It's more like a business arrangement than a religious concept these days and should be treated as such.
Let me guess, you have no problems with someone divorcing and remarrying five times in their life, right? Sacred indeed.
You guess incorrectly!! Doing such damages families and scars emotionally. Usually, the reason that happens is because someone jumps immediately into one relationship, before healing properly from the wounds of the previous one.
There are many components to a marriage, business being among one of them.
Bottom line: We have the right to define marriage as we see fit. And our people have done such, when it comes to its basic construct.
And who basterdized marriage? sure as hell wasn't religion. No it was the leftwing mentality of anything goes as long as it feels good.
I have my own opinion on abortion, I think it is a barbaric practice, but everyone has to make their own decisions and answer for it some day.
People like you are the main reason why I dislike left-wingers, you preach all this tollerance and accept all, but are the first to sling the insults at whoever disagrees with you.
Since marriage came with certain legal rights and privileges that are denied to another person based on sexuality. That's when it became a rights issue.MARRIAGE ISNT BEING DENIED TO ANYBODY YOU NUMB NUT FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you're right. We do have the right to define. So you won't be complaining as religion becomes less and less prevalent in people's lives and gay marriage gets legalized one day, right? I mean, the people do have the right to change their mind as well.
Religion has ebbed and flowed, with regards to importance in people's daily lives.
I also take it that you won't be complaining either (or, actually, you will) if it becomes MORE prevalent in people's lives. As you stated, people do have the right to change their minds.
MARRIAGE ISNT BEING DENIED TO ANYBODY YOU NUMB NUT FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
any man can choose to marry any woman they want and vice versa
Ive asked this many times without one answer so Ill ask it again so you little liberals can run for the hills and this thread can die again until bay comes and posts some other ignorant shit...
Who is being discriminated against?
how is this a breach of the US constitution?
what rights are being violated?
run liberals run...
if its true that people should be allowed to vote on this proposed 'right' I think we should have a mass election day and really decide on a few other 'rights' that we were not allowed to vote on.
blacks being able to ride in the front of the bus; blacks being able to marry a white lady; and lets change the military back to what it was before legislative action overrode the will of the majority. ;D
MARRIAGE ISNT BEING DENIED TO ANYBODY YOU NUMB NUT FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
any man can choose to marry any woman they want and vice versa
Ive asked this many times without one answer so Ill ask it again so you little liberals can run for the hills and this thread can die again until bay comes and posts some other ignorant shit...
Who is being discriminated against?
how is this a breach of the US constitution?
what rights are being violated?
run liberals run...
You guess incorrectly!! Doing such damages families and scars emotionally. Usually, the reason that happens is because someone jumps immediately into one relationship, before healing properly from the wounds of the previous one.
There are many components to a marriage, business being among one of them.
Bottom line: We have the right to define marriage as we see fit. And our people have done such, when it comes to its basic construct.
MARRIAGE ISNT BEING DENIED TO ANYBODY YOU NUMB NUT FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
any man can choose to marry any woman they want and vice versa
Ive asked this many times without one answer so Ill ask it again so you little liberals can run for the hills and this thread can die again until bay comes and posts some other ignorant shit...
Who is being discriminated against?
how is this a breach of the US constitution?
what rights are being violated?
run liberals run...
So the legal rights and protections given to a married couple that aren't given to a gay couple is not discrimination at all huh?by your idiotic reasoning you should be for polygamy and incestual relations too ::)...are you?
Would you tony, support giving all gay couples who want it the legal rights and protections that marriage offers but without the term marriage?
by your idiotic reasoning you should be for polygamy and incestual relations too ::)...are you?
again brain children, gays are not a separate class of citizen, are they?
they have the right to marry any opposite sex person they want, their rights arent being denied anymore than mine are...
you see the govt can have separate laws for separate groups as long as they treat all ppl in those groups equally...think tax brackets, if youre in one tax bracket you recieve the same treatment as another person in that tax bracket but not the same treatment as a person in another tax bracket.
Men are men there is not 2 separate classes of men, gay or straight...
I am for privatizing the institution of marriage and giving everyone civil unions but also for eliminating the perks gays get as well...
gays are the new womens movement they say the want equality but they dont they want special treatment...that shit doesnt fly hoss
No. You are the idiot claiming it is like polygamy and incest not me. There is nothing polygamous or incestuous about a gay relationship. If you fail to see that maybe you should diversify your friend circle to not include just your dog and mom.LOL brain child in terms of your ideas of denying rights they are exactly the same as homosexuals ::) explain to me how giving gays the right to marry but denying polygamist and brothers and sisters the right is different?
Obviously you don't see the reason behind this and never will. Which is sad aren't you suppose to be a lawyer in training? Even if you aren't you cannot see the other side of a debate. How will you ever hope to come up with anything more than a basic argument and understanding of any issue at hand without being so prejudiced.
Just what 'perks' do gays get tony? Please elaborate on how not having the same legal rights and standing as a hetro couple despite having the same feelings for one another is somehow a perk.
The womens movement was an important part of our history. Without it we would never have the equality that we do today. Is it a level field? No but it's a damn site better than it used to be. Sounds to me you're a little be backward Tony. Perhaps you wish us to regress and turn back to the 1950's when 'men weren't gay and women were in the kitchen.'
LOL brain child in terms of your ideas of denying rights they are exactly the same as homosexuals ::) explain to me how giving gays the right to marry but denying polygamist and brothers and sisters the right is different?
LOL im no lawyer in training ??? where did you get that, simply b/c i have a basic knowledge of law and how the govt works(which you obviously dont) doesnt make me a lawyer in training...
I completely understand your point of view but what you dont understand and cannot justify is how this is denying anyone their rights?
what part of the constitution is this breaching?
LOL how about being able to walk into any locker room and ogle a person they find sexually attractive without being arrested? sounds like a perk to me Id love to go stare at some of the women at my gym...you?
Again LOL you project these "wingnut" ideals onto me but you dont see that my points are valid. I agree we wouldnt have the same equality we have today without the suffrage movement. That however doesnt mean that women have gotten perks out of it that men do not have...same as the gays want.
dont tell me I dont understand your point of view, again Im in favor of civil unions for everyone so that was we will all be the same under the eyes of the govt. Marriage could become simply private and done without govt regulations.
whats wrong with that proposed plan kc?
That's why polygamy and gay marriage are not comparable. A marriage between two men , two women or a man and a woman all legally operate the same. If a man is married to several different women and he dies, are those women still married? If those women gave birth, do the children belong to all of the women equally or do they only belong to the respective woman who gave birth to them? What if the husband falls into a coma and has no living will? Which of the wives has power of attorney over him? If the women are employed, do they include the other wives' children on their health insurance? Are the women's tax obligations contingent on the number of children to whom they gave birth or the cumulative number of children in their family?
A polygamous marriage is an actual redefinition of marriage. A gay marriage isn't. There is no "slippery slope". It literally is just an inclusion of a group that had previously been arbitrarily excluded.The concept of two people creating a familial structure inherently makes sense, regardless of the gender of the people involved.
I didn't think you were a lawyer in training because of your board intelligence so please don't flatter yourself. I thought i read somewhere you were taking night school law but must be mistaken.I do go to school at night and am thinking of taking the LSATs to keep my options open but more likely I will go for my MBA.
Once again you miss the point and use a redundant 'example' of incest and polygamy i mean seriously the fact you want someone to explain why that is not the same as same sex marriage rights truly shows you have zero understanding of this beyond - gay = bad straight = good.
There is nothing wrong with same sex couples having the same legal benefits and protections as married couples. That we agree with. I don't think the name matters to most it's the legal and inalienable rights of a married couple that same sex couples want the benefit of having. Each American is allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is that not a right afforded by the constitution? 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. by denying a same sex couple marriage rights you are in effect denying them 'equal protection of the laws'. You are taking their liberty, their choice away from them and condemning them to a life of second class rights and benefits UNLESS they marry someone of the opposite sex. If that's not taking away someones choice and freedom what is?
Also you are way off base with the whole 'locker room' thing. To answer your question no i wouldn't want to go into the woman's locker room because unlike you Tony i am not a pervert or some kind of rapist. If you think that just because a man is gay he automatically must look at every guy and want him then you really are misinformed on this subject.
Except there has never been any obligation for married couples to procreate and social conventions, much less laws, aren't dictated by base biological urges.good points doggity
Marriage has, first and foremost, always been a business arrangement. Even though the idea of love is a factor in most cultures now, that is something that has come about in recent centuries. Dowries, arranged marriages and the concept of spouses were prevalent far before that. Even within religious-based unions. Even now, for all of the strands of love and devotion connected to it, marriage still seems to be more about financial stability than emotional stability.
That's why polygamy and gay marriage are not comparable. A marriage between two men , two women or a man and a woman all legally operate the same. If a man is married to several different women and he dies, are those women still married? If those women gave birth, do the children belong to all of the women equally or do they only belong to the respective woman who gave birth to them? What if the husband falls into a coma and has no living will? Which of the wives has power of attorney over him? If the women are employed, do they include the other wives' children on their health insurance? Are the women's tax obligations contingent on the number of children to whom they gave birth or the cumulative number of children in their family?
A polygamous marriage is an actual redefinition of marriage. A gay marriage isn't. There is no "slippery slope". It literally is just an inclusion of a group that had previously been arbitrarily excluded.The concept of two people creating a familial structure inherently makes sense, regardless of the gender of the people involved.
Well, no, not exactly.There are actually societal justifications for the illegality of incestuous marriages. By some estimates, the most common form of sexual abuse is father/daughter & brother/sister sexual abuse. If you've ever heard a sexual abuse victim describe the details of their sexual abuse, then you'd fully understand what "slippery slope" means in correct context. Most will say that they were convinced to engage in or allow inappropriate touching (or worse) because they were convinced by a loved one that it was no big deal, natural or a display of love. Normalizing incestuous relationships would have a horrific impact on sexual abuse. I don't actually believe genetic deformities would be too big of an issue unless multiple generations of inbreeding were to occur.
However, the incest/gay marriage comparison does make me LOL because it just highlights the ridiculousness of the "slippery slope" comparison. From a legal standpoint, you COULD make the argument that incestuous marriage is two consenting adults and shouldn't be outlawed. But practically, there would be no rush of brothers and sisters trying to get married. there are millions of openly gay Americans, many of whom would consider getting married if it was legal. There aren't a ton of siblings out there waiting to get married. When is the last time you heard of a sibling couple fighting for the right to marry? What incest marriage activist groups or websites are their? Even with it being a taboo, there should be a few well-known couples out there if there's some sort of slippery slope in the waiting, right?
by your idiotic reasoning you should be for polygamy and incestual relations too ::)...are you?
again brain children, gays are not a separate class of citizen, are they?
they have the right to marry any opposite sex person they want, their rights arent being denied anymore than mine are...
you see the govt can have separate laws for separate groups as long as they treat all ppl in those groups equally...think tax brackets, if youre in one tax bracket you recieve the same treatment as another person in that tax bracket but not the same treatment as a person in another tax bracket.
Men are men there is not 2 separate classes of men, gay or straight...
I am for privatizing the institution of marriage and giving everyone civil unions but also for eliminating the perks gays get as well...
gays are the new womens movement they say the want equality but they dont they want special treatment...that shit doesnt fly hoss
Well, no, not exactly.There are actually societal justifications for the illegality of incestuous marriages. By some estimates, the most common form of sexual abuse is father/daughter & brother/sister sexual abuse. If you've ever heard a sexual abuse victim describe the details of their sexual abuse, then you'd fully understand what "slippery slope" means in correct context. Most will say that they were convinced to engage in or allow inappropriate touching (or worse) because they were convinced by a loved one that it was no big deal, natural or a display of love. Normalizing incestuous relationships would have a horrific impact on sexual abuse. I don't actually believe genetic deformities would be too big of an issue unless multiple generations of inbreeding were to occur.I can see your point but if the legislation put in place now were still in place in respect to minimum age of marriage, statutory rape, molestation etc...it really wouldnt be any different than it is now. Now I agree that it would present the opportunity for certain ppl to take advantage of it but for all intents and purposes it would be the same.
However, the incest/gay marriage comparison does make me LOL because it just highlights the ridiculousness of the "slippery slope" comparison. From a legal standpoint, you COULD make the argument that incestuous marriage is two consenting adults and shouldn't be outlawed. But practically, there would be no rush of brothers and sisters trying to get married. there are millions of openly gay Americans, many of whom would consider getting married if it was legal. There aren't a ton of siblings out there waiting to get married. When is the last time you heard of a sibling couple fighting for the right to marry? What incest marriage activist groups or websites are their? Even with it being a taboo, there should be a few well-known couples out there if there's some sort of slippery slope in the waiting, right?
I never said that polygamy should be illegal because I "don't approve." I said the comparison between polygamy and gay marriage is not apt.
Yes, there are issues between married and formerly married people that are litigated daily, but these are issues of dispute involving extenuating circumstances among individuals. When these issues are resolved, the legal precedents they set would apply to couples across the board, regardless of the gender of the parties involved. For the most part, familial structure and legal considerations are very homogenous, even among alternative lifestyle families. That isn't true of marriages containing more than two parties.
My legal operation argument is not that it would be impossible for polygamous couples to work legal arrangements. Even without polygamy ever having been legal here, it is perfectly obvious that it would not work in the same way traditional marriage has. On the other hand, there aren't really any pertinent legal issues that a gay couple would face that a male/female couple couldn't. Polygamy would be an actual redefinition of marriage.
Cindy McCain comes out -- against Prop. 8way to go, Cindy; if you had done that last november I would have reconsidered my vote.
Cindy McCain -- wife of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain --has taken a high profile position contrary to her husband's on the issue of same sex marriage, by starring in a new ad to support the fight against California's Prop. 8.
The Associated Press is reporting the story tonight, saying that Mrs. McCain stars in the new ad, in which she is depicted adorned "with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek."
NOH8 is one of the army of gay rights groups which has challenged Proposition 8, the law banning same sex marriage which was passed by California voters in 2008. Currently, a federal court trial in San Francisco is underway, challenging the constitutionality of the law.
"In the year since we've started the NOH8 Campaign, we've often been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support,'' organizers of the gay rights group say on their website. "Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain -- the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain.''
"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot. Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind,'' the group says. "We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."
AP says that Arizona Sen. John McCain's office today "issued a statement saying the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.''
The former GOP presidential candidate, the statement said, believes "marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."
Cindy McCain comes out -- against Prop. 8
Cindy McCain -- wife of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain --has taken a high profile position contrary to her husband's on the issue of same sex marriage, by starring in a new ad to support the fight against California's Prop. 8.
The Associated Press is reporting the story tonight, saying that Mrs. McCain stars in the new ad, in which she is depicted adorned "with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek."
NOH8 is one of the army of gay rights groups which has challenged Proposition 8, the law banning same sex marriage which was passed by California voters in 2008. Currently, a federal court trial in San Francisco is underway, challenging the constitutionality of the law.
"In the year since we've started the NOH8 Campaign, we've often been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support,'' organizers of the gay rights group say on their website. "Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain -- the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain.''
"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot. Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind,'' the group says. "We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."
AP says that Arizona Sen. John McCain's office today "issued a statement saying the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.''
The former GOP presidential candidate, the statement said, believes "marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."
way to go, Cindy; if you had done that last november I would have reconsidered my vote.
strawbay serious question when are you going to rally for equal rights for straight males who want to stare at females in locker rooms like you get to in mens locker rooms?
seems a tad unfair doesnt it?
why not trying to answer the question instead of simply posting and running?
Doesn't look like you got your answer Tony.of course not ;)
of course not ;)still turning a blind eye ehh bay? ::)
when ppl are made to look foolish and their ideals shown to be as injust as the actions they are rallying against they tend to turn a blind eye 8)
Doest this mean you will start to fight for the rights of straights that have to be continually sexually harrased by gays?
or at the very least STFU about this? ;D
Tony, stop being such an ass. give it a rest, your argument is so stale.LMAO...its ok for them to do it b/c they are gay?
Sexual harassment is against the law, and if you're being sexually harassed, there is no law on the books that permits it... now STFU about gays staring at your naked ass in locker room. Stop wearing those gay ass red & silver Richard Simmons sneakers and they won't mistake you for being gay. NOW STFU already! ::)
Wait till gays learn the joy of divorce and family court.
They will curse this day.
We didn't just arrive from Mars, you know. We have all grown up in families where these things have happened. ::)
btw, like many straight people, many gays have zero interest in getting married.
I have heard comments from homosexuals that make me believe some of them expect to be immune to the marital problems heterosexual couples experience. Some of them bring up the divorce rate among heterosexual couples as an argument for homosexual marriage.
I have heard comments from homosexuals that make me believe some of them expect to be immune to the marital problems heterosexual couples experience. Some of them bring up the divorce rate among heterosexual couples as an argument for homosexual marriage.
That doesn't make sense, especially if (as has been claimed) gay "marriages" last an average of only a year and a half.
We didn't just arrive from Mars, you know. We have all grown up in families where these things have happened. ::)apparently most have no interest in equal rights either, just special treatment... ::) ::) ::)
btw, like many straight people, many gays have zero interest in getting married.
I have heard comments from homosexuals that make me believe some of them expect to be immune to the marital problems heterosexual couples experience. Some of them bring up the divorce rate among heterosexual couples as an argument for homosexual marriage.
Never mind. It was Massachusetts.
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=86775
Yup, and that's just one gay couple out of many. The thing is that many married gay couples are now having legal problems getting divorced. The state they live in does not recognize their marriage from the state where they got married, thus divorce can't be granted. So now they are fighting for the right to gay divorce.
They could easily petition the license issuing state for divorce. This more or less looks like a publicity stunt to get attention for their cause.
Here's the full text of the ruling if you are interested (and with 30 pages on the topic of gay marriage, getbig is obviously very interested). ;D
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
They could easily petition the license issuing state for divorce. This more or less looks like a publicity stunt to get attention for their cause.surely you jest sir...the gays would never do such a thing...
surely you jest sir...the gays would never do such a thing...
So much for the will of the people.
dont be naive; the will of the people argument is silly; try the tryanny of the majority over the minority.
On the other hand; if you really want the 'will of the people' then let's revisit/revote about separate but equal and the right for women to vote. Personally, I'd like to own a couple house slaves....
It's almost time for the obligatory "there was a time when blacks and whites couldn't marry" comment. :)thank you; saved me the time to type it.
thank you; saved me the time to type it.
representing the people. .
As I've said elsewhere, don't be surprised if the 9th Circuit Court actually overturns Walker, just as the 8th Circuit Court overturned Judge Bataillion and reinstated Nebraska's marriage amendment.
Constitution circumvents the popular vote. The Constitution is the iron clad document that cant be negotiated. So the popular vote has no say.
If there was a district wide proposal to kick blacks out of the district, and it was held in Orange county...Im sure the measure be voted on and the majority for the bill. But because the popular vote is to ban blacks...it would be unconstitutional...there fore overturned..
Get it?
So I take it you agree with the Electoral College for voting for President?Yes...because it is in the Constitution.
Constitution circumvents the popular vote. The Constitution is the iron clad document that cant be negotiated. So the popular vote has no say.
If there was a district wide proposal to kick blacks out of the district, and it was held in Orange county...Im sure the measure be voted on and the majority for the bill. But because the popular vote is to ban blacks...it would be unconstitutional...there fore overturned..
Get it?
Apparently, YOU don't get it, which is why you deliberately CUT OUT the crucial part of my post, namely, "He and the CA Supreme Court scrubbed Prop. 8, before it ever went to the voters. They said it was kosher, according to the state and federal constitutions. If there were no constitutional issues with Prop. 8 in May 2008, there should be no such issues in August 2010.
The CA court ruled in 2004 ("Lockeyer v. San Francisco") that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT VIOLATE the federal constitution and that they were bound by the US Supreme Court's ruling of such from the "Baker v. Nelson" case.
In other words, since there was NO CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH FOUND, the will of the people DOES matter. This dopey judge just made a ruling that clashes with Supreme Court precedence and rulings from other courts, in favor of defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union.
That's why I said not to be surprised, if the 9th Circuit Court overturns Walker, just as the 8th Circuit Court overturned Bataillon.
Oh my God...i swear im arguing with a 6 year old...the bill went to the U.S. District court right...Which are the proper channels. And the Supreme court justice who is FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE which in other words means "guy who is constitutional excpert" So when it was said and done...it went through the channels and a decision was made.
If you're arguing with a six-year-old, may I suggest pulling yourself from the mirror. Again, a federal district judge overturned Nebraska's marriage amendment which "in other words means 'guy who is constituitonal expert' " But, he got overturned by the 8th Circuit Court.
In other words, you can have a federal judge rule against a marriage amendment, only to have his ruling trumped. Since the 9th is looking at this, the matter ain't all "said and done", as anticipated from the start.
.
I apoligize for calling you a 6 year old. Totally uncalled for on my part and its not the way to argue.
I do think the bill went through the system and was argued by the appeals well enough to have a second look at its constitutional validity and was deemed unconstitutional. Now if it it appealed and argued succesfully then it will be another story
LMAO still yelling about equal rights while refusing to acknowledge other rights that you have that others dont?and what are some of those rights that others dont?
typical ::)
1 in 5 of homo men who engage in anal sex with other men have AIDs. Over 50% of Black homo men who carry the AIDs virus do not know they have the disease.quote from????
quote from????Benny Blanco?
1 in 1 of idiot men with the initials BB who post made up stats have AIDS.LOL @ the gay dipshit. ::) I don't "make up stats."
I guess Benny would be the one to know the most about this issue since it effects him the most of anyone on this board.It is true that I have ass raped PEA BRAIN on this board many, many times. I confess. ;D
It is true that I have ass raped PEA BRAIN on this board many, many times. I confess. ;D
Nah - you are mistaking me for your messiah.Nope, your torn and bleeding rectum is unmistakable. ;D
Nope, your torn and bleeding rectum is unmistakable. ;D
How did you scour the internet for gay blow up dolls? That's quite disturbing. :-\ Is that the same website where you buy your Rush Limbaugh buttplugs? :-X
::) ::)
Your un-ending devotion to the messiah speaks for itself. there is simply no other poster on this entire site who has made such a buffoon of himself as you have in supporting everything and anything from this admn.
As far as the gay marriage thing goes - i wish you luck with your husband, seriously.I'm already married to a woman, sorry. You wouldn't know about that, since your sex life consists to jerking off to Sarah Palin online while sticking your Rush buttplug up your anus. :D
LOL
You make a "buffoon" of yourself hourly on this board with your 75 posts of day of mindless right wing drivel. You couldn't form an opinion without listening to The Drugster Limbaugh for your talking points, PEA BRAIN. Get a job!
I'm already married to a woman, sorry. You wouldn't know about that, since your sex life consists to jerking off to Sarah Palin online while sticking your Rush buttplug up your anus. :D
Having fun searching gay websites for new toys, PEA BRAIN! :-\
Calling yourself the woman in your gay relationship does not count fool.Calling yourself a man when your sex life consists of wacking off to Palin and O'Donnell does not count, you fat loser. :D
Until I see those stats from a site such as the CDC, they are worth nothing.I did not make up the statistic, and informed you of its source.
I did not make up the statistic, and informed you of its source.
Keep having all the buttsex you want with other men, I really don't give a damn.
I enjoy seeing a cat fight between two fags. Utterly HYSTERICAL!
I did not make up the statistic, and informed you of its source.
Keep having all the buttsex you want with other men, I really don't give a damn.
I enjoy seeing a cat fight between two fags. Utterly HYSTERICAL!
I am asking for a better source. Anyone can publish numbers but that doesn't give them any credibility.according to the obama administration its not up to him to prove it, its up to you to disprove it ;) :D
according to the obama administration its not up to him to prove it, its up to you to disprove it ;) :D
Christians operate under the same principle as well.LOL is it just christians or all religious ppl? and not all do...there is no undeniable proof either way as far as that is concerned...
I am asking for a better source. Anyone can publish numbers but that doesn't give them any credibility.What makes the NPR host of "Tell Me More" -quoting the CDC- reflective of a lack of credibility? NPR is not known for not fact-checking the data they use to put on the air. Have you had past experience with Michel Martin not having her facts in order? I haven't. She has received an Edward R. Murrow award for journalism among many other awards, as well as having graduated cum laude from Harvard. Whenever I listen, her program is always highly professional, informative, insightful and non biased. The show has been on for four years, and prior to that Ms. Martin has 25 years of journalism experience, primarily with ABC News.
First of all this is just like the Apple/steve jobs nut hugging you do bay...we will all get over it in about 25 years, when it's legal everywhere. just a matter of waiting it out.
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT about gay rights, or gay special rights as it should be called...
second of all it doesnt matter how many ppl say they support it in a "telephone poll" the only thing that matters is who shows up to vote and so far the VAST majority of ppl are against gay special rights...
GET THE FUCK OVER IT
we will all get over it in about 25 years, when it's legal everywhere. just a matter of waiting it out.agreed, and we will all get over gay special rights in 25 years as well...just a matter of waiting it out ;)
agreed, and we will all get over gay special rights in 25 years as well...just a matter of waiting it out ;)you say special - i say equal.
you say special - i say equal.
tomato; tomatoe...its all the same in the end (pun intended)
So getting married is a right? Need to brush on what is a right and what is not
Equal treatment under the law is a right accorded to all citizens via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Opponents of equality were very unhappy about that in 1868 when the Amendment was first adopted and they are unhappy about it today. ;)whats unequal brain child?
whats unequal brain child?which is why we have the judicial system..
youre allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex same as I am...
Im not allowed to marry any dude just like youre not...
sounds equal to me...
Equal treatment under the law is a right accorded to all citizens via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Opponents of equality were very unhappy about that in 1868 when the Amendment was first adopted and they are unhappy about it today. ;)
Still doesn't make marriage a right, and if you are trying to equate sexual preference with skin color your fucking nuts
which is why we have the judicial system..congrats but that still doesnt make it a right...
yes, if you were in MA you would be allowed to marry a dude.
congrats but that still doesnt make it a right...because you can marry someone of your sexual preference and I can not.
the voters can do away with gay marriage if im not mistaken...
voters cannot do away with rights...
again ill ask, where is the inequality?
because you can marry someone of your sexual preference and I can not.and?
and?equating marriage to a locker room?
you can stare at ppl naked of your sexual preference and I cant...
you seem to be all for that...
but you dont call them special rights, right? LMFAO idiot
equating marriage to a locker room?
Bay was trying to equate sexual preference with skin color earlier. Doesn't seem as big of a stretch
I don't see where there is much of a difference between sexual preference and skin color.
Neither is controllable by the person and they are both genetic traits.
Where do you see the difference?
Really, being gay is genetic? Please provide definitive proof, as I have yet to see any. I knew a guy like women had an Identical twin that was gay, explain that one.
I don't see where there is much of a difference between sexual preference and skin color.so is being more prone to be violent tu...
Neither is controllable by the person and they are both genetic traits.
Where do you see the difference?
There has been a lot of studies on the human brain and how homosexuality is not a choice, it's genetic... There are people on both sides of the equation.There are alot of studies that show it has a genetic content tu, not that it is purely genetic
Personally though... I do believe it's genetic.
I have 2 gay uncles... My dad's brothers... It may be a recessive gene, but I firmly believe it's genetic. Do I have some scientific evidence... Well, as much as you may have that it's not. Like I said, there's arguments on both sides... but my own empirical evidence is that it is genetic.
It may not be good enough for you, but it is for me.
so is being more prone to be violent tu...
it can also be related back to genetics...
Like Ive always said when they start fighting for equal rights and not special rights, Ill jump on the band wagon.
so is being more prone to be violent tu...well, then, join in! since you can marry your preference and I can't; we are not equal. nothing special about that; just equality.
it can also be related back to genetics...
Like Ive always said when they start fighting for equal rights and not special rights, Ill jump on the band wagon.
Yes, but violence harms innocent individuals, but homosexuality does not.agreed but in your view its the same as homosexuality, so do you think we should give those ppl who are violent a break? because after all its genetic...
I agree with the equal rights... Always.
I do also believe that special treatment should not be allowed... However, I don't think your analogy about the locker room is exactly right.
well, then, join in! since you can marry your preference and I can't; we are not equal. nothing special about that; just equality.LOL and since you can see ppl you find sexually attractive naked without paying a door fee and I cant...either are we
agreed but in your view its the same as homosexuality, so do you think we should give those ppl who are violent a break? because after all its genetic...
LOL ppl take the locker room analogy the wrong way...my point is its not right to allow gay ppl into a position where they can legally see a person they find sexually attractive naked against that persons will.
After all this is deemed illegal for heterosexuals, so why not for homosexuals?
As self-appointed mediator, I will solve this issue.
Chad, I support your right to marry whoever you want.
Tony, I support your right to check out hot chicks whenever you want.
Let us all now live in peace. :)
It's illegal because of the difference in anatomy... not because they are "checking you out".Agreed but the reason the difference in anatomy is significant is what tu?
People who have the MAOA gene are prone to it and it has been used in court cases. Results have varied... So it already has happened.
PS... white people have less of the MAOA gene than other people.
Agreed but the reason the difference in anatomy is significant is what tu?
LOL Id like to see a break down of races by MAOA gene
There has been a lot of studies on the human brain and how homosexuality is not a choice, it's genetic...
There is not a single credible scientific study proving homosexuality is genetic. It's a lifestyle choice.
Many people know of those who have the gay epiphany late in life, after being married and having a family. We also know of people who chose to be gay later in life and then gave up the lifestyle.
doesnt say anything about asians, Ive known a lot of violent asian ppl in my day.
Ive also seen studies about testosterone production and violent tendencies as well.
No offense there Beach, but I'm sure your extremely right leaning christian view might have a little bias on the subject, so you'll forgive me if I ignore your thoughts on the matter.
You asked, I provided...
For as many violent asians as you say you've met, I know a ton of asians and I can't think of a single one I consider "violent".
Don't know where you meet your asians, but my empirical evidence does not support yours I suppose.
There has been a lot of studies on the human brain and how homosexuality is not a choice, it's genetic... There are people on both sides of the equation.
Personally though... I do believe it's genetic.
I have 2 gay uncles... My dad's brothers... It may be a recessive gene, but I firmly believe it's genetic. Do I have some scientific evidence... Well, as much as you may have that it's not. Like I said, there's arguments on both sides... but my own empirical evidence is that it is genetic.
It may not be good enough for you, but it is for me.
Tony is right. I live in a state where Asians make up about 60 percent of the population and there are plenty of violent Asians. Not sure what that has to do with homosexuality.
Then let me throw my opinion out there, it is not PC and gays won't like it but oh well. I believe that the whole marriage thing has nothing to do with gay rights, it is simply a way for gays to prove to themselves that their life style is completely normal. When in reality it is not, there is a reason there is a male and female of the species, to procreate and continue on said species. People want to attach love or emotion to it, when in the most basic sense it is to breed.
You asked, I provided...Im half japanese, hung out with plenty of asians in high school and still do trust me my man there is no shortage of violent asians. Ive seen a couple of ppl shot, sliced with knifes, beaten with pool cues etc...all by the passive little asian guys you wouldnt give a second look walking down the street.
For as many violent asians as you say you've met, I know a ton of asians and I can't think of a single one I consider "violent".
Don't know where you meet your asians, but my empirical evidence does not support yours I suppose.
tony, lets update our play here and simplify our comments.
you always fall back on the 'locker room right to look' argument and I resort to 'equal rights vs special rights'.
so, to make all this repetitive typing easier, let's assign a number to our most used / repeated arguments to make it streamlined.
Your locker room argument is now number 14 ( my favorite locker in the locker room )
my statement is now number 69 ( for obvious reasons ).
you like the words moron, idiot, brain child; all personal insults can now be #$.
This should make our posts shorter and easier to read.
I like this. Except it's incomplete. Since 99 percent of your posts consist of silly comments, you should just post the number 99. Will make your posts shorter and easier to read. :)
doesnt say anything about asians, Ive known a lot of violent asian ppl in my day.
Ive also seen studies about testosterone production and violent tendencies as well.
tony, lets update our play here and simplify our comments.k #$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$$#$#$#$#$#$#$ ;)
you always fall back on the 'locker room right to look' argument and I resort to 'equal rights vs special rights'.
so, to make all this repetitive typing easier, let's assign a number to our most used / repeated arguments to make it streamlined.
Your locker room argument is now number 14 ( my favorite locker in the locker room )
my statement is now number 69 ( for obvious reasons ).
you like the words moron, idiot, brain child; all personal insults can now be #$.
This should make our posts shorter and easier to read.
boomLOL the one squating has a nasty streak, you can tell by looking at his face.
LOL the one squating has a nasty streak, you can tell by looking at his face.
LMFAO at the pic name LOL
k #$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$$#$#$#$#$#$#$ ;)see, we play well together.
For some, gay marriage battle is a race against time
Judges last week extended a stay on same-sex marriage until higher courts rule on Prop. 8. Derence Kernek and Ed Watson hope that process will move faster than the advance of Watson's Alzheimer's disease.
By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
Derence Kernek and Ed Watson live together each day in fear that they won't be able to pledge "till death do us part" before it's too late.
Watson, 78, is in rapidly failing health, afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, obesity, diabetes and hypertension.
A federal appeals court ruled last week that same-sex marriage will remain on hold in California until a judge's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional makes its way through the higher courts — reviews expected to take a year or more.
"We don't have the money to travel to a state where it's legal," said Kernek, 80, observing dejectedly that the travel would probably be too grueling for his partner of 40 years. "Besides, we wanted to do it in California, where our friends are, where we live. Now I don't think we'll be able to, not while Ed can still remember."
The ticking clock on Watson's awareness was one of a chronicle of arguments presented to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in an unsuccessful bid to convey the urgency of letting same-sex marriage resume during the protracted appeals process.
A 9th Circuit panel made up of Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins and N. Randy Smith denied the request Wednesday without explanation.
Proposition 8 proponents had argued that the voter initiative's restriction of marriage to one man and one woman should remain in place pending the appeal. They said the stay was necessary to avert social chaos if, as they insist is likely, the courts decide that the voters of California had the right to outlaw same-sex marriage.
The Aug. 4 ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional buoyed hopes across the national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities that their rights to marry and raise families would eventually earn full legal recognition.
But for some, including Kernek and Watson, "eventually" could come too late.
In response to an online appeal by the Hollywood-based Courage Campaign for testimony to back the legal challenge of Proposition 8 and other gay-rights litigation, more than 3,000 couples came forward with their stories about why they believe marriage can't wait.
"Life is not eternal — sometimes it is tragically short — and courts should not act as if it were otherwise," said Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and a key strategist in the legal campaign to scuttle Proposition 8.
The anecdotes of fatal illness and faltering minds were intended to put human faces on gay- and lesbian-rights advocates' arguments that continuing to prohibit same-sex marriage after Walker's ruling inflicts irreparable harm on many.
The Proposition 8 opponents argued that Walker's ruling recognized marriage as a fundamental right for all Americans, and their veteran lawyers, David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, cited case law dictating that a court should suspend a judge's ruling only when the party seeking that stay shows that it is likely to win on appeal and be irreparably harmed in the meantime.
"Each day plaintiffs, and gay men and lesbians like them, are denied the right to marry — denied the full blessings of citizenship — is a day that never can be returned to them," two same-sex couples who brought the successful lawsuit against Proposition 8 argued in their motion.
Those who will be harmed, Courage Campaign chairman Rick Jacobs argued in an accompanying letter to the court, are couples like Kernek and Watson and San Diego residents Jerry Peterson and Bob Smith, both in their 70s and longing to marry before the end of an appeals process that could outlive them. Shane Mayer and John Quintana, 28-year-olds from San Francisco, want to marry while Mayer's cancer-stricken father can still take part, the friend-of-the-court letter testified.
Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for Proposition 8 backers, hailed the panel's ruling as "a victory for Proposition 8 supporters and the initiative process as a whole."
In his appeals court filings, Pugno had argued that the same-sex couples' claim of urgency "rings hollow." He pointed out that they waited six months after the initiative passed to bring their lawsuit and failed to challenge the stay when the 9th Circuit first decided last fall to keep the ban in place while the appeal was being expedited.
Pugno's opponents say they didn't make an issue of the stay when Walker imposed it or when the 9th Circuit agreed it should remain in place because the appeals court said the case would be fast-tracked, Jacobs said. But when the 9th Circuit on Jan. 4 asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the Proposition 8 architects have the legal right to appeal Walker's ruling, it became clear that the process would drag on until the end of this year, if not longer, Jacobs said.
That outlook is dispiriting for Kernek and Watson, who don't like to contemplate their prospects for surviving the appeals process intact.
"I can't even say how many times I've had to call 911 when he falls or gets into a position where I can't lift him," Kernek says of his partner.
The two retired to this gay-friendly desert oasis five years ago, after their eclectic college pursuits — horticulture, social work and engineering — took them from the Bay Area to Kansas City, then an Oregon farm that was their home and livelihood for a decade.
They registered as domestic partners when they arrived in California, and after the state legalized same-sex marriage three years ago, they thought they could make the ultimate commitment to each other when the time was right. The passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008 shocked them, as did Watson's diagnosis of Alzheimer's a few months later.
Kernek is more confused than bitter about the legal obstacles preventing them from taking vows before Watson's memory recedes to a point of no return.
"Why is it important to anybody else who you are devoted to?" Kernek asks. "I just don't see how who I love hurts anybody else's marriage."
Prop. 8: Who's fit to judge?
Proposition 8 backers say Judge Walker should have recused himself because he's gay. That's absurd.
April 27, 2011
Married judges rule on divorce cases all the time. So do single judges. And divorced ones. Their rulings aren't challenged on the grounds of their marital status; that would obviously be ridiculous.
Yet ProtectMarriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, is challenging last year's ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker that declared the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The group's lawyers argue that because Walker has a longtime male partner, he was unfit to render a decision on Proposition 8. If one day he should want to marry, the argument goes, he might benefit from his own decision, assuming it survives the scrutiny of higher courts.
This claim is absurd on many levels, especially when you remember that ProtectMarriage's case against same-sex marriage is that it threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. In fact, the group says, that damage gives it the legal status to challenge the initiative, because any married heterosexual is allegedly harmed by same-sex unions. But if that's the case, then by the group's own logic, married heterosexual judges would also be forced to recuse themselves; the integrity of their own marriages could be damaged by the matter before them.
According to this line of argument, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, a married heterosexual, would not have been able to preside over the California Supreme Court case in which same-sex couples sued to overturn an earlier ban on same-sex marriage. George wrote the majority opinion setting out the reasons why the ban violated the state Constitution.
So then, perhaps, only an unmarried judge who has sworn never to wed could hear cases about same-sex marriage. Or any marriage at all. An African American judge could never hear a race-discrimination case. And no female judge could decide a lawsuit on gender discrimination. Or a male one either.
The guidelines for judicial recusal can be unclear at times, but generally the bar is a high one. The rules call for judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but they are not supposed to back away from cases because of who they are — their ethnicity, gender, marital status, affluence, political leanings or, yes, sexual orientation. It's another matter if they are directly and materially affected, or if they have previously displayed a deep-seated bias on the issue at hand. A judge who drives a gas guzzler can still hear a lawsuit against an oil company, but not if his or her spouse works for the oil company.
Had Walker been one of the activists fighting Proposition 8, or if he had repeatedly sought a marriage license and been rejected, ProtectMarriage would have valid claims of conflict of interest. The group's assertion that a gay judge in a relationship is less able than a heterosexual married judge to render a fair decision on a sexual-orientation case says more about the pervasiveness of discrimination against homosexuals than it does about Walker's fitness to hear the matter.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Gay divorce is going to be a real carnival act.LOL true, how long before a judge judy type show starts with that as the premise...
LOL true, how long before a judge judy type show starts with that as the premise...
FUCK man thats a million dollar idea right there LMFAO
Let's do it!
Let's do it!i agree..
at the very least hopefully the obnoxious gay rights movement will get some groups to realize the hypocrisey of yelling for equal rights but really wanting special rights...
if this gets women to stop asking to be treated equal while at the same time still insisting to be treated like ladies when it suits them then im all for it.
Gay divorce is going to be a real carnival act.
It already is. And, the irony is that the lesbian couple that started this mess in Massachusetts, filing the suit that got Mass. to legalize gay "marriage", filed for "divorce" just a few years later.hmmm wonder why bay didnt start a thread on that like he does every other high profile hetro divorce.
hmmm wonder why bay didnt start a thread on that like he does every other high profile hetro divorce.
Bay can you speak on this?
also would you and your husband like to be on our tv show?
Probably will be Chad.you called?
Obama endorses Feinstein bill to repeal Defense of Marriage Act
By Christine Mai-Duc
President Obama endorsed a bill Tuesday that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a 15-year-old law denying federal benefits for same-sex couples.
"The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people – our families, friends and neighbors,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye.
DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.
Inouye said the bill introduced by Sen.Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to repeal it would "uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples."
In the past, Obama has voiced support for civil unions for gay couples, but stopped short of supporting same-sex marriage, and instead has said his views are "evolving."
Last year, Obama supported the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Earlier this year, the administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court, though it would continue to enforce the law unless it is repealed. But Obama supported the use of "discretion" by immigration officials in cases of married same-sex couples in which one spouse is undocumented.
Yet even as Feinstein spoke to a group of reporters about Wednesday's Senate committee hearing on the repeal, Obama had not officially endorsed it.
Advocates of the repeal were elated upon the announcement.
“It is rare that a White House endorses a bill that has yet to pass first in either the Senate or the House,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the gay rights advocacy group Courage Campaign, in a statement. “His support makes clear to all Americans that the Defense of Marriage Act has no place in our society.”
This is simply more pandering ...i love pandering; i'll let you pander me anytime..your place or mine ! ;)
Out of the mouths of babes. :)
"The only reason why it's even an issue is because people are not comfortable with themself.
Young New Yorkers Speak Out On Gay Marriage
On Sunday, New York will become the largest state to allow same-sex couples to wed, a move that was approved by the State Senate last month to tearful and raucous applause. For many couples who have been waiting for decades for their union to be legally recognized, it was a joyous victory in a hard-fought battle for the same rights afforded to straight couples.
But for some of New York’s younger residents, those 18 to 24, who were born long after the city’s first gay pride parade in 1970, and for whom marriage is a distant idea, does the legalization of same-sex marriage matter?
The New York Times interviewed dozens of people in recent days to get their perspective on the topic. With more teenagers coming out in high school, many said that homosexuality and bisexuality was more mainstream than it was a generation ago. Nevertheless, their gay peers, relatives and siblings still faced challenges...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/21/nyregion/20110720-gay-marriage-young-voices.html
I know a few gays via other friends and they are mostly a bunch of single issue voters who want to play the victim card 24/7.
Its all about them and their issues all the time. I am routinely called homophobic etc by these twinks and I tell them "You are right, I dont give a damn about LGBT issues while the nations' economy is in collapse"!"
Like we have nothing else to worry about buy twinks and their agenda. ::) ::) ::)looking at that pic of the older gentlemen, it is clear you don't understand the real definition of 'twink'
Christie Wants Voters to Decide on Gay MarriageWhy not? If the dems are ok with states voting on abortion. Then reps should be ok with voting on marriage...oh wait
By KATE ZERNIKE
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said Tuesday that he would veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and he challenged the State Legislature instead to put the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.
Democrats, who control the Legislature, swiftly rejected the idea, accusing the governor, a Republican, of trying to punt on a politically sensitive issue.
“Marriage equality isn’t like sports betting,” said Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Union County Democrat, referring to a referendum on an amendment to the State Constitution on gambling last year. “It’s a civil right, which is already guaranteed in our Constitution. It’s up to the Legislature to guarantee these rights.”
The same-sex marriage bill is a priority for Democrats, led by the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, who has said that his decision not to vote on a similar bill two years ago, when there was a Democratic governor who supported same-sex marriage, was “the biggest mistake” of his political career.
Gay-rights advocates had been hoping that Mr. Christie, who supports civil unions over same-sex marriage, might sign the legislation, or, if he vetoed it, give Republican legislators tacit approval to vote for an override.
Mr. Christie is considered a rising national star in a party still dominated by socially conservative voters who oppose same-sex marriage. But he had been uncharacteristically noncommittal in recent weeks. On Monday, he nominated a gay man to the State Supreme Court, and when asked about the prospects for the marriage bill, said that he would make a decision if and when the bill ever reached his desk.
He made his proposal on Tuesday after a town-hall-style meeting in Bridgewater, suggesting that the ballot question be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment. “The fact is, we’re discussing huge change, and I believe we need to approach this not only in a thoughtful way, not in a rushed way, but also in a way where we’re able to get the most input that we can from the public,” he said.
The news was quickly conveyed to Republicans at a crowded hearing on the marriage legislation in Trenton. Senator Christopher Bateman, a Republican from Somerset County who some Democrats had been hoping would support the bill, announced Mr. Christie’s stance about an hour into the hearing and said he agreed with it.
“Get this issue for once and all decided,” Mr. Bateman said.
Senator Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat, shot back: “Civil rights will not be placed on the ballot.” When the crowd at the hearing applauded, he added: “We don’t need to wait for an answer. We just got one.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the same-sex marriage bill, 8-4.
“When the governor was doing his town hall meetings, I can’t tell you how many times he said, ‘Call your legislator, I want to make these changes;’ ” Mr. Sweeney said in an interview later. “Why would he put this on the ballot when everything that’s been important in this state in the last two years has been handled by the Legislature?”
Mr. Christie’s move also disappointed gay-rights advocates, who had just on Monday been effusive in their praise for his nominating Bruce Harris, who will be the state’s first openly gay Supreme Court justice if confirmed.
A poll released by Quinnipiac University last week found that 52 percent of New Jersey voters believed that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, and 53 percent believed that denying them that right constituted discrimination. But across the country, the right to same-sex marriage has been granted mostly by court decision or legislative action. Same-sex-marriage advocates noted that almost every one of more than 30 ballot questions on gay rights had failed to broaden them; even in 2008, when the country elected a Democratic president, voters in California approved Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.
“It’s a hard dynamic to win at the polls,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who is openly gay. “At the end of the day, gays are a minority and they can’t match the crazies, who are out there and really motivated to vote against it.”
Democrats argued that the last time the state placed a civil rights issue on the ballot was in 1915, when voters — then limited to men — considered whether to allow women to vote, and rejected the proposal.
A separate move for same-sex marriage is proceeding through the courts in New Jersey. In 2006, the State Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but left it up to the Legislature to decide how to ensure those rights.
The Legislature passed a law allowing civil unions, but gay couples have sued, arguing that it fails to provide equal rights.
Why not? If the dems are ok with states voting on abortion. Then reps should be ok with voting on marriage...oh wait
I am ok with this.Agreed just like eventually the votes will go the way of banning most elective forms of abortion
I think eventually the votes will go the way of gay marriage anyway... if not today, then in a time not in the distant future.
Agreed just like eventually the votes will go the way of banning most elective forms of abortion
It might... I don't know if it will. Personally I don't think so, but if it does, then it does.Look at the polling trends and you will probably be surprised if you really don't think so
Look at the polling trends and you will probably be surprised if you really don't think so
I know the polling trends.so would euthanizing anyone over 75 but thats not legal...
No one says late term abortions and shit... I know the routine and all of the topics on it... I'm just tired of the abortion argument from everyone when abortions aren't what's fucked this country.
If anything, it saves us money.
so would euthanizing anyone over 75 but thats not legal...because they make a nice change from all that newt madness.
I feel the same way though, but then again i also feel that way about any glbt bullshit politically correct topic. Yet we still have threads like this that keep getting bumped by our obsessed resident post and run troll...
because they make a nice change from all that newt madness.yea, a thread about gay marriage is a "nice change"...yeeeeaaaaaa
plus, it gives you a chance to rehash your old arguments for the newbies here.
'showers with gays in military'? a classic.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,"why bother to read/post here if his postings bother you?
LMFAO ahhh nooooo, nature did that!!!
goodness gracious, hey bayway does this mean your finally going to STFU about gay marriage?
If the people of the state vote for it...one way or another, the people have spoken. I don't have agree....but it was fair. This shit...voted fairly and overturned by some lib douchbag, gimme a break.back in New Jersey, a vote was taken whether to allow women the right to vote.
why bother to read/post here if his postings bother you?LOL so you only look and post on things you agree with?
LOL so you only look and post on things you agree with?truth hurts sometimes. but in the end [pun intended] people learn and grow as adults.
how do you feel about the 9th blaming voters for something that nature did?
doesnt seem very fair does it?
LMFAO - gay divoerce court is going to be awesome.
Poster Couple" For Gays Rights Divorcing
Tuesday's ruling was "bittersweet," said Robin Tyler, who filed for divorce in JanuaryBy Irene Moore and Cary Berglund| Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012 | Updated 11:03 AM PST#videoCapture { z-index:5 !important; }
When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss. It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.
Gay Marriage "Poster Couple"...
TweetLinkEmbedEmailCopyC loseLink to this video
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/news//Gay-Marriage-"Poster-Couple"-Divorcing/138912434CopyCloseEmbed this video
When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.
It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.
Even as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, one of the state's first gay couples to tie the knot was calling it quits.
Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on January 25. The pair were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged the ban in 2008.
In an exclusive interview with our NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, Tyler spoke about her decision.
"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.
Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.
When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied- a marriage license.
The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere.
"I don't know how to describe it - I wanted this all my life," Olson told the Jewish Journal that day. "Every time I went to a girlfriend's wedding, and when my brother got married, it was something I always wanted for myself. It looks like God must have wanted it for me, too."
In November 2008 voters passed Prop. 8, banning gay marriage. Tyler and the thousands of other gay and lesbian couples who wed before Nov. 4, were allowed to remain married but same-sex couples who wanted to get married were forbidden under the new law.
During the prolonged litigation over Prop 8, Olson marveled at the scope of the ban. "For a bunch of people to tell me who I can love, who I can marry, who I can say this is my person, this is who I choose to spend the rest of my life with, it's mindboggling to me that a few religious people can vote for our equal rights," she said.
Reflecting on their marriage in August of 2010, Tyler said: "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older."
But even the best of marriages can come to an end.The right to marry wasn't meant to guarantee that gay couples would live happily ever after, Tyler said, but to provide a basic human civil liberty.
Tyler said her marital problems were no different than if the two parties had been a man and woman. Gays and lesbians shouldn't be held to a different standard when granted the same civil rights as everyone else, she said.
"What is the standard to expect when you integrate equality," Tyler asked. "We're just like anybody else and that's all they can expect of us."
Let us know what you think. Comment below, or send us your thoughts via Twitter @PropZero.
Find this article at:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Poster-Couple-For-Gays-Rights-Divorcing-138944094.html
LMFAO - gay divoerce court is going to be awesome.
As I've always said... Everyone deserves the right to be as miserable as I was.and Newt was [apparently] unhappy twice...jury's out on # 3
and Newt was [apparently] unhappy twice...jury's out on # 3
Incredible. Why even have fucking elections and referendums?
If the people of the state vote for it...one way or another, the people have spoken. I don't have agree....but it was fair. This shit...voted fairly and overturned by some lib douchbag, gimme a break.
I'm kinda surprised you're against this, 3333, I thought you'd agree with the notion that 51% cannot vote away the rights of the other 49%...
This isn't just another "law." It violates the individual rights of citizens. That would have been OK prior to the 14th Amendment, but state governments are no longer allowed to do that.
I'm kinda surprised you're against this, 3333, I thought you'd agree with the notion that 51% cannot vote away the rights of the other 49%...
This isn't just another "law." It violates the individual rights of citizens. That would have been OK prior to the 14th Amendment, but state governments are no longer allowed to do that.
I personally don't give a damn about this, but I do believe the people have a right to decide what is considered a legal marriage.
I think the states should decide on it, and if they want the voters to vote on it, fine.
I don't see gay marriage as a fundamental legal right.
And what alleged right is being violated (notwithstanding that there was a Supreme Court case that covered this)?
truth hurts sometimes. but in the end [pun intended] people learn and grow as adults.why did you quote my post when you didnt address anything in it?
The right to enter into a contract with a consenting adult...
The very purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to protect far-ranging individual rights from government encroachment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to enter into a contract with a consenting adult...they arent being denied rights that any other person is being denied...
The very purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to protect far-ranging individual rights from government encroachment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Entering a contract is hardly the issue here. When you get a job, you enter a contract with an employer (usually an adult). We are talking about marriage. So, once more, what right is being denied here?
With that said, who said that it has to be A consenting adult...or even an adult for that matter?
they arent being denied rights that any other person is being denied...
marriage is a contract between two ppl of the opposite sex...you forgot the opposite sex part...
if we start changing the definition, where do we stop?
multiple spouses?
they arent being denied rights that any other person is being denied...
marriage is a contract between two ppl of the opposite sex...you forgot the opposite sex part...
if we start changing the definition, where do we stop?
multiple spouses?
Exactly!! The same arguments that gay "marriage" proponents used are often used by polygamists.
I mean, who are you to say that a man can't love more than one woman? And, if procreation is no longer an issue in marriage (as many gay "marriage" supporters argue), you'd have to legalize incest, too.
Oh noes! Let's destroy Mormon families because they are exercising their rights! And I thought social conservatives were supposed to be pro-family ::)
Mormons, by and large, don't participate in polygamy (i.e. a certain presidental candidate). So, nobody's destroying any families there.
EVERY person is denied these rights. It is not up to the government to control the language and define away our rights to enter into a contract with whatever other consenting individual UNLESS that contract violates the rights of a third party.so what youre saying is we are all equal in that respect?
so what youre saying is we are all equal in that respect?
thats the govt's job, unless they are defined as a specific class of citizen.
The govt can discriminate as long as they descriminate against all groups and not just one.
I could agree with you if marriage was soley a private institution but it not it involves the govt.
Nobody is keeping these individuals from saying their married, the govt is just not recognizing their marriage.
Marriage by its very nature is a private institution! Governmental control of marriage is an invention of Revolutionary France! Conservatives and specifically Roman Catholics were horrified at the notion of government seizing the control of marriage away from individuals.thats fine, maybe your point would be better received if you argued for the govt getting out of the marriage business and not the govt forcing others to accept marriage for something it has never been in this country...
thats fine, maybe your point would be better received if you argued for the govt getting out of the marriage business and not the govt forcing others to accept marriage for something it has never been in this country...
as of right now your point makes no sense.
I am arguing that point. The government should not be dictating what marriage is at all and is not Constitutionally or morally allowed to prevent consenting individuals from becoming married.and again nobody is preventing them from marrying anybody that anyone else isnt being prevented from marrying.
and again nobody is preventing them from marrying anybody that anyone else isnt being prevented from marrying.
actually the govt does have the ability to establish laws as long as they do not single out certain groups. what group is being singled out here?
No, the government is not allowed to violate everyone's rights equally. I am not arguing for the 14th Amendment interpretation of this issue that the court in question used, but a Ninth Amendment interpretation.yes they are allowed to limit our rights, they do it all the time my friend. Yes laws are limits on our rights...
why did you quote my post when you didnt address anything in it?because you're fun to tease; I can always get a rise outta ya.
because you're fun to tease; I can always get a rise outta ya.youre right, ignorance is my kryptonite...
youre right, ignorance is my kryptonite...see, to quote RR, 'there you go again'
I cant seem to keep my mouth shut when morons are spouting off :)
Washington state makes 7: Governor signs gay-marriage law
"My friends, welcome to the other side of the rainbow!" state Sen. Ed Murray declared Monday as Washington became the seventh state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.
In a boisterous ceremony at the state Capitol in Olympia, Gov. Christine Gregoire -- a Catholic who weathered strong opposition, including a last-minute "action alert" from the state's Catholic Church leadership -- signed legislation to give same-sex couples the same right to a marriage license as anyone else.
"Look into your hearts and ask yourselves: 'Isn't it time?'" said Gregoire, as cheering supporters chanted "Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!"
"We did what was just. We did what was fair. We stood for equality, and we did it together, Republicans and Democrats, gay and straight, young and old, and a number of our faith organizations. I'm proud of who and what we are as a state," the governor said.
There was a decidedly festive mood at the statehouse, where the debate in the state Legislature -- which approved the bill on split votes in both houses -- had been measured, lacking the name-calling and fireworks that often characterizes the issue.
The legislation exempts churches, religious institutions and members of the clergy from participating in same-sex marriages if it goes against their beliefs -- a compromise aimed at hundreds of churches whose members phoned and emailed lawmakers in an attempt to defeat the bill. Several faith organizations signed on in support of the measure, however, Gregoire noted.
"Years from now, our kids will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, but those of us who lived through the last 20 years appreciate how challenging this has been," said state Sen. Jamie Pedersen, who sponsored the bill through its contentious charge through the Legislature. On Monday, he introduced onlookers to his "future husband," a former high school administrator who stood on the sidelines cradling one of the couple's four children.
The issue is far from over, however. Conservative and religious leaders have vowed to begin collecting signatures on a referendum to overturn the new law. The statute, slated to take effect on June 7, would be held in abeyance if referendum proponents succeed in placing it on the November ballot.
"Much hangs in the balance over the next few months. This is a time for people of faith to work together," Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network, said in an appeal to supporters. He added in another statement: "This is a dark day for people of faith and those who honor natural, traditional marriage. It is a tipping point for the state."
A separate initiative proposal to define marriage as occurring between one man and one woman is also pending before a judge in Thurston County, and could also make its way to the ballot. "Right now, the condition of marriage is an unmitigated disaster and needs a lot of reform, but we need to begin that reform with an accurate definition," the proponent of that measure, Stephen Pidgeon, said in an interview.
Opponents of the new law were scheduled to meet with presidential candidate and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who was traveling to Washington on Monday as part of his presidential campaign. Santorum was planning a public address later in Tacoma in which same-sex marriage opponents hoped he would discuss the new Washington law.
But Gregoire and other supporters of the measure expressed confidence that Washington voters, who backed domestic partnerships on a 53%-47% vote in a 2009 referendum, will support the new law as well.
"We know that it's going to be a hard campaign, and we're going to have to fight really hard to protect this victory, but we believe we can be victorious in November," Zach Silk, spokesman for Washington United for Marriage, told the Los Angeles Times.
Washington joins six other states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont -- plus the District of Columbia in legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples. An additional eight states, including California, provide same-sex couples with access to state benefits and responsibilities offered married couples, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.
The New Jersey state Senate passed a same-sex marriage bill on Monday, but the ultimate outcome in that state was expected to be much different. Although the Assembly is expected to approve the measure, Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto the bill should it reach his desk.
Maryland governor signs same-sex marriage law
By Ian Duncan
Cheers rang out in the marble hallway of the Maryland State House as Gov. Martin O'Malley signed a gay marriage law and handed the pens to gay members of the General Assembly who were gathered behind him.
"For a free and diverse people, for a people of many faiths, for a people committed to the principle of religious freedom, the way forward is always found for the greater respect of the equal rights of all, for the human dignity of all," O'Malley said before sitting down to sign the law.
The bill narrowly passed the House of Delegates on Feb. 17 and the state Senate less than a week later, and it now faces a campaign by its opponents to put it to a public vote in November. If that challenge fails, the law will be enacted on Jan. 1 next year.
After a similar measure died in the state House of Delegates last year, O'Malley, a Democrat, announced in July his intention to sponsor a new law. This year's version of the bill included protections for churches and other religious institutions, allowing them to opt out of holding gay weddings.
In debate on the bill, opponents questioned whether the protections were strong enough, and a last-minute attempt to broaden the exemption was defeated in the Senate.
The Maryland Marriage Alliance, a coalition of religious groups, is leading the campaign to overturn the law at the polls. The organization is gathering petition signatures, the first step in the referendum process. The organization is linked to the powerful National Organization for Marriage, a group formed to fight for California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex unions.
"It is clear that while the opponents of marriage have been seeking influence from an elite group of politicians and supporters, the average citizens of Maryland continue to believe in the time-tested, unalterable definition of marriage," Derek McCoy, executive director of the alliance, said in a statement earlier this week.
Marylanders for Marriage Equality, a coalition that backs same-sex marriage rights, expects the efforts to get the referendum on the ballot to succeed and is mounting a campaign to uphold the law.
"I celebrate with my gay friends today," Ezekiel Jackson, a political organizer with Service Employees International Union Local 1199, part of the group, said in a statement. "But we are clear that a referendum may be on the horizon. There is something uneasy about total strangers deciding whether my gay friends can marry and whether their kids can be protected equally under the law."
Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
and get tied up in court battles. people will marry during this time and it will go the way CA is going; it will be overturned.
Not quite! Maryland's law doesn't take effect until next January, by which time the people will likely have REVERSED that law, as was the case in Maine.
It was California's supreme court that came up with the stupid idea of giving marriage licenses to gay people, knowing that the Prop. 8 vote was on the horizon.
I've long suspected that the court did this (along with then-AG Jerry Brown and his shenanigans) to skew the vote against Prop. 8. That's why so many liberals were SHOCKED, when Prop. 8 passed.
Despite all the polling, claiming that the majority of Californians supported gay "marriage", despite Brown's re-wording of Prop. 8's title, despite the court giving licenses to gays (with the implication that, should Prop. 8 pass, those licenses might be voided), the people stated loud and clear how marriage should be defined: one man and one woman.
I love this - obama is going to go down even harder now.
The man has perfected flip-flopping. He makes Romney look like an amateur.
The thing is that its so obvious this is all about gay $$$$$ flowing to his campaign and little else.
Marriage used to state one race as well. White could only marry white and so on.
That certainly has changed. As will this.
Every year more people care less about your faith based view of marriage.
That's just the way it is.
The thing is that its so obvious this is all about gay $$$$$ flowing to his campaign and little else.
what a bitch.
campaigned for her daddy and his boss who was agin' this.
then she travels across state to where it's legal.
DOPEno, sir.
Religious retards are gnashing their teeth over this. LOL
may they all get aids and die off
And you're not banned yet for hate speech? After whining like a baby about it.
Maybe a few will commit suicide. ::)
Go to love this - last year the leftists praised the court for ObamaCare, Tuesday the leftists are melting down at the court over VRA, and today they are in gay bliss w the court over DOMA
Are you talking about this hate speech?
Lot of whining going on in here.
That too! ;D. Ahmed whined when I called him a leech and my comments were edited but he feels comfortable calling me names and hoping gays all die. I seriously dislike the hypocrite. I hope Ahmed dies from the aids he got from bay. Two birds with one stone.
Nothing compared to the weeping and gnashing of teeth the queers and those who enable them will be doing for eternity.
Jack Hunter: I find it so encouraging that for many young conservatives and libertarians, same-sex marriage is not a be-all-end-all issue, but reducing government is. The exact opposite of many of their elders.
Seeing how we either all end up as worm food or ashes in the end, I would wager to bet those people holding out on a hope that some imaginary deity punishes another person for their own insecurities would be a bit of a stretch.
This is it right here.
I've been saying this for some years now, but some of the "older" conservatives on the boards don't like to believe it.
The next big thing is these twinks trying to force churches and facilities to host their events
This where I would object. Religious institutions should not be forced to marry gay people. And they probably won't be. Except Muslims. Most of them are closet cases anyway.
Too late. States around the country are already trying to do it. The excuse is if the church performs marriages for anyone who is not a member or charges money, they have to perform homosexual marriages too.
Completely ridiculous. Churches have a right to decide who they will and won't marry. Churches don't have to like gay marriage and shouldn't be forced to accept it at their church. As citizens we have the right to associate with whom ever we choose. Whatever group is advocating this needs to just stop and leave the churches alone.
Completely ridiculous. Churches have a right to decide who they will and won't marry. Churches don't have to like gay marriage and shouldn't be forced to accept it at their church. As citizens we have the right to associate with whom ever we choose. Whatever group is advocating this needs to just stop and leave the churches alone.
I don't buy it... There's already the fact that Priests won't marry non-catholics... So if that's the case, I don't see how you can force a church to marry a group of people they do not approve of... They already don't do it based on other criteria... I'm calling shenanigans on this one.
I completely agree. There will probably be an all out assault after these rulings.
Fundamental change coming to this country. Depending on a person's viewpoint, that could be good or bad.
Its bad for anyone who values freedom and the separation of church and state. You and I may differ on our views about the legality of gay marriage but we agree that its not the domain of the state to interfere in the business of churches.
change is coming world wide
Its bad for anyone who values freedom and the separation of church and state. You and I may differ on our views about the legality of gay marriage but we agree that its not the domain of the state to interfere in the business of churches.
change is coming world wide. that big jump in the red box is Brasil.
We absolutely agree about that.
I do support traditional marriage, but I also believe in the Democratic process. States should decide. The people should vote. Whatever the people decide should be the law in that particular state. Just my two cents.
We absolutely agree about that.
I do support traditional marriage, but I also believe in the Democratic process. States should decide. The people should vote. Whatever the people decide should be the law in that particular state. Just my two cents.
access to equal protection under the constitution is not something that should be subject to the voters
If they want to vote to change their state constitution to allow discrimination that's another issue
Until a couple recent elections, the people (in the US) always voted NO to gay "marriage" when it was put to the people to vote.
Activist judges have played far too great a part in all this. They will be harshly judged by a much, much higher Court when Jesus makes His triumphant return.
horseshit
a gay man has always had the right to marry any woman that would have him
One man. One woman. Period.
I cannot recall exactly, but I don't think any of the states where homosexual marriage is legal involved a vote by the people? Wasn't it either a court ruling or state legislatures?
horseshit
a gay man has always had the right to marry any woman that would have him
One man. One woman. Period.
November 6 2012: Maine, Maryland and Washington all legalized same-sex marriage through popular vote. Wikipedia is your friend
Thanks did not know that. When did DC become a state? :o
Thanks did not know that. When did DC become a state? :o
Washington DC has had same sex marriage since 2010, passed by the city council and signed by the mayor
Washington state was by popular vote
LOL - too bad your opinion doesn't matter
My opinion indeed does not matter.
But you people will indeed find out that what God says does matter.
Hopefully, it won't be too late.
My opinion indeed does not matter.
But you people will indeed find out that what God says does matter.
Hopefully, it won't be too late.
Washington DC has had same sex marriage since 2010, passed by the city council and signed by the mayor
Washington state was by popular vote
My opinion indeed does not matter.
But you people will indeed find out that what God says does matter.
Hopefully, it won't be too late.
No one has ever heard what "God says".
Too bad it fags getting married was God's Will.
you will not fondly remember your sad attempts to mock God as you burn in Hell for eternity, bitch
Religious retards can sleep easy. All gays are still going to burn in hell, unless of course they accept Jesus as their savior and stop being gay immediately after every time they have gay sex. Just like every time a straight person commits a non-gay sin. Gotta love the "grace"...don't ya?
Christianity is so user friendly.
Problem solved, move along...
The next big thing is these twinks trying to force churches and facilities to host their events
Too late. States around the country are already trying to do it. The excuse is if the church performs marriages for anyone who is not a member or charges money, they have to perform homosexual marriages too.
They were going there anyway. It's more proof of the moral degradation of America caused by liberalism. On the bright side. When they get divorced there spouse and figured out its an exit and not and entrance, they'll suffer the same financial loss as traditional marriages. This ruling, as wrong as it was, is all about the $$$$. Other than, we could give a shit what they do behind closed doors. Keep your sexuality to yourselves around kids.
They were going there anyway. It's more proof of the moral degradation of America caused by liberalism. On the bright side. When they get divorced there spouse and figured out its an exit and not and entrance, they'll suffer the same financial loss as traditional marriages. This ruling, as wrong as it was, is all about the $$$$. Other than, we could give a shit what they do behind closed doors. Keep your sexuality to yourselves around kids.
I have to disagree. I see this ruling as a natural expansion of basic rights to those who have been denied them. However, these new rights should not infringe on existing rights of churches. As long as churches are allowed to choose who gets married in their church I'm fine. I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that happens.
I have to disagree. I see this ruling as a natural expansion of basic rights to those who have been denied them. However, these new rights should not infringe on existing rights of churches. As long as churches are allowed to choose who gets married in their church I'm fine. I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that happens.
this won't effect churches at all but considering that churches are primarily money making operations it would not surprise me if some christian churches advertise that they will do gay weddings
btw - divorced people can't get married in a Catholic Church and there are plenty more divorced people in this country than gay people.
All you need is one gay couple turned away from a church to initiate a lawsuit. I'd recommend that the gay and lesbian community take this victory and not push for church acceptance.
All you need is one gay couple turned away from a church to initiate a lawsuit. I'd recommend that the gay and lesbian community take this victory and not push for church acceptance.
why haven't any divorced couples sued the Catholic church
there was a Baptist church last year that won't marry a black couple
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding
churches can make their own rules
they are basically private clubs/money raising operations
I agree with you. I'm only saying that gay couples shouldn't bother to make this an issue. The argument that churches are private clubs/money raising operations is one I generally agree with. It's not a giant leap from that logic to forsee someone using the arguement in court that church's who marry a member not of their faith or of no faith at all is committing descrimination when they turn away gay couples. Going after these churches will only fuel paranoia.
this won't effect churches at all but considering that churches are primarily money making operations it would not surprise me if some christian churches advertise that they will do gay weddings
btw - divorced people can't get married in a Catholic Church and there are plenty more divorced people in this country than gay people.
Yes they can. Im going through it as we speak.
Those who use the main sewer of the human body as a playground are unfit for military service.what about all the str8 couples who have anal sex? its one of the most popular categories in all of str8 porn. anal play.
-General Sir Walter Walker
It was the end of the world for the Military to allow openly gay soldiers, now its the end of the universe because of Gay marriage.I'm sure he has better uses for the wood.
God will dis-own and repossess his cross
That was their plan all along.former gov Huckabee said he would be happy to have churches lose their tax exempt status if that allows them to continue to preach/teach political views.
The goal is to take away their tax exempt status and secularize the country as a whole.
you're getting married in a Catholic church?
did you get your last 4 marriages annulled?
I'm doing it for my wife. I got out of the Catholic Church in 1997. For over 6 years we have been going through the process. It's a crock of crap. I turned in all of my paper work listing my past. I haven't got so much as an explanation as to why it's taking so long. My wife is a pretty hardcore catholic, but the "Church" doesn't recognize us as being married. I had to go back 25 years into my past. Didn't want to relive that crap...trust me.
I'm doing it for my wife. I got out of the Catholic Church in 1997. For over 6 years we have been going through the process. It's a crock of crap. I turned in all of my paper work listing my past. I haven't got so much as an explanation as to why it's taking so long. My wife is a pretty hardcore catholic, but the "Church" doesn't recognize us as being married. I had to go back 25 years into my past. Didn't want to relive that crap...trust me.
and then in addition to the pedo scandals they wonder why attendance in down the in the USA
Apparently Catholics take that vow before God thing kind of seriously
From what i see and saw as an ex catholic, its more about the "church" than about god.
From what i see and saw as an ex catholic, its more about the "church" than about god.
This^^^
50% of Catholics voted for Obama.
This^^^
50% of Catholics voted for Obama.
This^^^
50% of Catholics voted for Obama.
George Takei: A defeat for DOMA — and the end of ‘ick’
By George Takei
George Takei, an actor and activist, played Mr. Sulu on “Star Trek” and is the author of “Oh Myyy!: There Goes the Internet.” Follow him on Twitter: @GeorgeTakei.
Forty-four years nearly to the day after drag queens stood their ground against a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, sparking rioting in New York City and marking the beginning of America’s gay rights movement, our nation’s highest court at last held that a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Amazingly, since Stonewall, the question of LGBT rights has evolved from whether homosexuals should have any place in our society to whether gay and lesbian couples should be accorded equal marital stature.
Whenever one group discriminates against another — keeping its members out of a club, a public facility or an institution — it often boils down to a visceral, negative response to something unfamiliar. I call this the “ick.” Indeed, the “ick” is often at the base of the politics of exclusion. Just this March, for example, a young woman at an anti-same-sex-marriage rally in Washington was asked to write down, in her own words, why she was there. Her answer: “I can’t see myself being with a woman. Eww.”
Frankly, as a gay man, I can’t see myself being with one, either. But it’s usually not gays who write the laws. If this woman were in Congress, her personal discomfort might infect her thinking — and her lawmaking. Gays kissing?Ick.
The Supreme Court may be the ultimate interpreter of the rules, but it is still the court of public opinion that matters. And public opinion has shifted — 51 percent of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, and 42 percent oppose it. Reflecting this slim majority, Wednesday’s 5 to 4 ruling made clear that “ick” is not a proper basis for constitutional jurisprudence. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his opinion, warned against this specifically, noting that when “determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus . . . ‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’ especially require careful consideration.” Kennedy was not prepared to allow the “ick” to remain law, knowing that the result is often embarrassing when judged by history.
For more than 70 years, I’ve watched the “ick” infect American life in a variety of ways and concluded that it’s little more than a function of unfamiliarity. Once upon a time, you never saw two men kissing — for that, you’d have to visit an adult video store.
Even I was taken aback the first time I saw two men being affectionate in public. The “ick” runs deep, instilling unease even in those for whom an act is natural. When I was a child, I knew that my sexuality was not something I could reveal to others. Later, as a young actor, I knew I could not be open about it without serious consequences for my career. It wasn’t until 2005 — when I was in my late 60s — that I came out.
But the “ick” goes beyond LGBT issues. It once blocked public displays of interracial affection. A white person didn’t kiss a black person on American television until 1968 — on “Star Trek,” when Captain Kirk kissed Lieutenant Uhura. That was quite controversial. Indeed, some two decades before that kiss, when I was growing up in California, it was illegal for Asians and whites to marry.
Now I’m married to a white dude. How times have changed!
Anti-miscegenation laws of the last century were based on appeals to the “natural” order, another way of saying that the alternative is icky. The trial judge in the case Loving v. Virginia , which overturned such laws in 1967 — yes, less than 50 years ago — defended marital segregation. He wrote: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
The Virginia law struck down in Loving was called the Racial Integrity Act. Sound familiar? Kennedy also took note of this naming convention: “The stated purpose of the law was to promote an ‘interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws.’ Were there any doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of the Act confirms it: The Defense of Marriage.” DOMA, like the Racial Integrity Act, by its very name suggests a desire to protect marriage from some kind of social pollution.
To help justify the “ick,” many, like that judge in Loving, turn to the Bible, perhaps because science doesn’t lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural. As one popular saying goes, homosexuality is found in more than 400 species, but homophobia in only one. But references to the Bible or other religious texts are not a solid footing on which to base notions of traditional marriage. Concerns about the separation of church and state aside, traditional marriage has never been what its homophobic proponents believe. As author Ken O’Neill reminds us, the fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we’ve already redefined marriage.
And it is the height of irony that the Mormon Church, once known for its polygamy, bankrolled the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 campaign as a champion of traditional marriage. (The Supreme Court declined to rule on Prop 8, so same-sex marriages in California will continue.)
Marriage wasn’t the only institution attacked by the “ick.” It was used once to justify segregation in the U.S. military. A study of proposed racial integration of the Navy in the 1940s drew conclusions about interracial mixing that sound much like the hand-wringing over gay men in close quarters with straight men during the “don’t ask, don’t tell” era:
“Men on board ship live in particularly close association; in their messes, one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side; and in particular tasks such as those of a gun’s crew, they form a closely knit, highly coordinated team. How many white men would choose, of their own accord that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, at mess, and in a gun’s crew should be of another race?”
These words are outrageous today, but only because we no longer react with disgust at the notion of the races working and sleeping side by side. Because social mores change with each generation, the “ick” is not particularly effective at preventing changes to our institutions. Importantly, same-sex marriage is supported by a strong majority of young people: A recent Field Poll in California showed that 78 percent of voters under 39 favor marriage equality.
Future generations will shake their heads at how narrow, fearful and ignorant we sounded today debating DOMA. Happily, the majority of our justices understood this and did not permit the “ick” to stick.
future generations led into Hell for choosing the gay lifestyle will rue the phaggotry of the majority of "our" justices
No, most of them accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
So along with other sinners like your self, you will sing hymns in heaven with gays.
as long as they repent for it and the Lord has it under the blood, no problem
Many Many many gays go to church, they repent for their various vile fornications just like straight adulterers, covet-ers, liars, cheats, porn addicts, drug addicts, gamblers, child abusers, spouse abusers, women with make up, pants, etc. and then they go back and do it all over again. Its a happy little circle.
happy circle jerk among the queefs
hell bound no true repentance
happy circle jerk among the queefs
hell bound no true repentance
Don't worry, God will punish the sinners by sending a tornado to the Bible belt. Again.
wrong, twinkie
He gave you people a chance to repent by sending AIDS
It will only get worse for you people...just because your choices have achieved "legal" status doesn't make them right in His eyes...He will not be mocked...don't mistake His patience for weakness
wrong, twinkie
He gave you people a chance to repent by sending AIDS
It will only get worse for you people...just because your choices have achieved "legal" status doesn't make them right in His eyes...He will not be mocked...don't mistake His patience for weakness
By that retarded logic you can claim that SIDS is a punishment for heteros then. Of course, how do you explain all the straight people with AIDS?
Too bad all those hurricanes and tornados have been proven to be God's punishment. even though they only hit the Bible belt. Just ask the preachers on tv.
Hell can't be all that bad.. what with all the Christians and Republicans there?
This homo shit really seems to be getting to you. May I suggest taking advantage of it. A Russian Groom service perhaps? Why let females enjoy all the joys and benefits of indentured servitude.
So vile. So venomous. So bitchy.... you sure you are not a queer too?
how did your dad answer this question when you asked him? (assuming he isn't already dead from aids)
Dude this isn't the G&O. Why do ya gotta bring the family shit into it.
have I hurt your feelings ::)
(http://www.alternet.org/files/story_images/twinkie.jpg)
yes, I am hurt
yes, I am hurt
Congrats, bay. It was to long coming. I hope you and the mayor are happy.
Hurt just a little? Or ass-on-fire butthurt like Chadwick?
I didn't think these things were allowed on the Politics board?
Like a long, slow, throbbing, pulsating, burn...oh wait....
It's not. Usually the mods here address it, and it's one of the reasons I prefer this board. Keep that family shit outta here!
Well, he's railing against Gay marriage and one of the more prominent Mods is a very devout christian, so he will not intervene.
Sad.
Translation = hypocrite
Nobody has to pretend that stupid people are relevant, even if society "tolerates" them.
Nobody has to pretend that stupid people are relevant, even if society "tolerates" them.
Sounds like you are having a really tough time over this queer issue.
Since it won't catch up with me, it is safe to say I will be much happier day in and day out than you apparently will be.
Sounds like there is a deeper reason for your angst and whining. Most likely due to your boyfriend rejecting your marriage proposal.
::)
nice try, polesmoker
a lot of dead queers didn't think AIDS would catch up to them, but it did
::)
nice try, polesmoker
a lot of dead queers didn't think AIDS would catch up to them, but it did
Prop. 8: California Supreme Court refuses to stop gay weddings
by Maura Dolan
The California Supreme Court refused Monday to stop gays from marrying while it considers a legal bid to revive Proposition 8.
The court rejected a request by ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure, to stop the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples while considering the group’s contention that a federal judge’s injunction against the marriage ban did not apply statewide.
The court is not expected to rule on the group’s petition until August, at the earliest.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided last month that ProtectMarriage lacked the legal right to appeal a 2010 injunction against Proposition 8 issued by a federal trial judge in San Francisco.
Gov. Jerry Brown said the injunction compelled him to order county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But ProtectMarriage insists the injunction applies only to two counties at most and that Brown erred when he ordered clerks to stop enforcing the marriage ban.
State Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, whose office represents Brown, has contended that ProtectMarriage is asking the state court to interfere with a federal court order in violation of the constitution.
amusing that queers think their "marriages" are validaccording to the law of the land, they are. and god has far too many other, real issues to worry about.
according to the law of the land, they are. and god has far too many other, real issues to worry about.
according to the law of the land, they are. and god has far too many other, real issues to worry about.
^^ clearly has rage of self loathing going on
These "judges" will eventually stand before an Eternal Judge, as will all of us.
Laugh all you want...but that day is coming.
Gays can already marry, just not in the give me $$ divorce sense.
Civilian wedding.
Gays should marry for love not money.
:)
So there problem solved.
Let gays continue to have regular wedding and leave str8s alone.
:)
;D
Are gays actually bothering "straights"?well, apparently, some..even here! ;D
What's the problem with two consenting adults who love each getting married. I don't get it.like that's a major issue in this country or something.
like that's a major issue in this country or something.
Not the finances. Noooo. Those damn gays can get married.
The horror!
What's the problem with two consenting adults who love each getting married. I don't get it.
The good book say they cant you heathen!!
The word of god is way more important than any economy.
What good is a rich life if you will spend the rest of eternity in hell ???
We don't all believe in God.
We do want to live comfortably.
I care about my wallet. Not a book.
You won't be so bold when you face Him...and inevitably, each one of us will.
We don't all believe in God.
We do want to live comfortably.
I care about my wallet. Not a book.
Spoken like a true sinner :P
Unfortunetly i agree so we will burn together.
Well when that day happens you can say I told you so.
Until then though, you're just another person who needs to feel like there's something or someone out there pulling the strings.
We will see who is right in the long run.
I'm not worried.
Judges can rule however they choose...they will answer to the real Judge soon enough.so says our visitor from the 3rd century theology.
No ruling can make an abomination anything but an abomination.
Judges can rule however they choose...they will answer to the real Judge soon enough.
No ruling can make an abomination anything but an abomination.
8)
One thing that I've learned about this gay marriage agenda. It has nothing to do with who loves who. It's about who gets what when they die, get divorced or other wise. I call it a moral loss on traditional marriage and society and a financial win for the gay community.
One thing that I've learned about this gay marriage agenda. It has nothing to do with who loves who. It's about who gets what when they die, get divorced or other wise. I call it a moral loss on traditional marriage and society and a financial win for the gay community.
One thing that I've learned about thisgaymarriage agenda. It has nothing to do with who loves who. It's about who gets what when they die, get divorced or other wise.
I call it a moral loss on traditional marriage and society and a financial win for the gay community.
Dumbass Coach talking about traditional marriage, or marriage of any kind, is like an elephant giving someone flying lessons.
Hopefully one day we can meet so I video me beating the holy fuck out you. Ever make it to California, pussy?
Coach going straight for option d.
Coach going straight for option d.
Hopefully one day we can meet so I video me beating the holy fuck out you. Ever make it to California, pussy?
I'm a pretty conservative bloke but I don't give a flying motherfuck what gay people do. Not my business, don't care. I know a handful of gay people and they are all super cool, nice people. A little nutty in some ways, but aren't we all. Can't we just move on from the Gay marriage thing? We've got bigger fish to fry right now.
Tell that to your conservative friends who keep scrambling to raise money, donate money, organize, and file lawsuits to prevent others from being treated equally before the law. ;)
Tell that to your conservative friends who keep scrambling to raise money, donate money, organize, protest, and file lawsuits to prevent others from being treated equally before the law. ;)
For some reason they don't understand that even if we ban a gay marriage, there will still be a shit-ton of gay people in the world. Nothing that can be done about it. I say if you don't like gay people, just leave them alone. Most of them don't want to be around you either. I don't know, people are strange.
Hopefully one day we can meet so I video me beating the holy fuck out you. Ever make it to California, pussy?
Who the F cares really? This is like No. 235451 in the list of important things going on right now.
Ah, the voice of resignation from someone who knows the battle is over. No worries though; I am sure “conservatives” will come up with a new boogieman to demonize in no time. Oh, look over there! It’s an illegal immigrant! >:(
Lukers problem is he's (and I mean with all sincerity) too fucking stupid to realize that he almost got kicked off of here for doing the same crap he's doing now. He stopped for a couple of weeks then it's like he can't help but to leave off whet he ended. He's definitely has a screw loose.
Ah, the voice of resignation from someone who knows the battle is over. No worries though; I am sure “conservatives” will come up with a new boogieman to demonize in no time. Oh, look over there! It’s an illegal immigrant! >:(
You and Beach spent DAYS, repeat DAYS, whining to Ron to ban me. You little pussy bitch. Ron timed me out for 48 hours because - as he said - he was tired of listening to the nonstop whining and endless PMs.
You talking about someone being stupid is like a turtle giving racing lessons. You are considered the dumbest person on this board by the vast majority.
Because you can't come up with anything better than this ^^^^
You and Beach spent DAYS, repeat DAYS, whining to Ron to ban me. You little pussy bitch. Ron timed me out for 48 hours because - as he said - he was tired of listening to the nonstop whining and endless PMs.
You talking about someone being stupid is like a turtle giving racing lessons. You are considered the dumbest person on this board by the vast majority.
Who the F cares really? This is like No. 235451 in the list of important things going on right now.
Gay marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada struck down
By Associated Press October 7 at 6:01 PM
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada on Tuesday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage in 30 other states.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down Idaho and Nevada’s bans on gay marriage, ruling they violated equal protection rights.
The court also has jurisdiction in three other states that still have marriage bans in place: Alaska, Arizona and Montana. Lawsuits challenging bans in those states are still pending in lower courts and have not reached the 9th Circuit.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that laws that treat people differently based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional unless there is a compelling government interest. He wrote that neither Idaho nor Nevada offered any legitimate reasons to discriminate against gay couples.
“Idaho and Nevada’s marriage laws, by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states,” Reinhardt wrote.
He rejected the argument that same-sex marriages will devalue traditional marriage, leading to more out-of-wedlock births.
“This proposition reflects a crass and callous view of parental love and the parental bond that is not worthy of response,” Reinhardt wrote. “We reject it out of hand.”
Technically, the court upheld a trial judge’s ruling striking down Idaho’s ban and reversed a lower court ruling upholding Nevada’s ban
Reinhardt ordered a “prompt issuance” of a lower court order to let same-sex couples wed In Nevada.
“We are absolutely delighted that wedding bells will finally be ringing for same-sex couples in Nevada,” said Tara Borelli, the lawyer who argued the Nevada case for Lambda Legal.
Monte Neil Stewart, the Idaho-based attorney who argued the case for Nevada on behalf of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, declined to say whether he’ll challenge the order for the prompt start to same-sex marriages. Nevada’s governor and attorney general dropped out of the appeal earlier this year.
Reinhardt didn’t say when marriages should start in Idaho.
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s spokesman Todd Dvorak said his office believes the 9th Circuit’s stay on marriages pending a U.S. Supreme Court appeal remains in place.
“We are reviewing the decision by the court and assessing all of Idaho’s legal options,” Wasden said in a prepared statement.
Sue Latta and Traci Ehlers sued Idaho last year to compel Idaho to recognize their 2008 marriage in California. Three other couples also joined the lawsuit to invalidate Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban.
“This is a super sweet victory,” said Latta, who said the ruling came much sooner than she expected.
“Taxes are easier, real estate is easier, parenting is easier, end of life planning is easier,” Latta said. “We no longer have to hire an attorney. We have a valid marriage license.”
State and federal court judges have been striking down bans at a rapid rate since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year. The 9th Circuit ruling comes a day after the nation’s top court effectively legalized gay marriage in 11 more states, for a total of 30, when it rejected a set of appeals.
The appeals court panel did not rule on a similar case in Hawaii, which legalized gay marriage in December. Hawaii’s governor had asked the court to toss out a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban and an appeal to the 9th Circuit filed before Hawaii lawmakers legalized same-sex marriage.
All three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. President Bill Clinton appointed Judges Marsha Berzon and Ronald Gould. President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
During oral arguments in September, the debate in the appeals court over Idaho and Nevada bans focused on harm to children.
Lawyers seeking to invalidate the bans argued children of gay couples are stigmatized when their parents are prevented from marrying. Attorneys supporting the bans said gay marriages devalue traditional marriages, which will lead to fewer weddings and more single-parent homes.
Tell me, as a conservative do you feel proud or ashamed when you see how your parents and grandparents behaved in the 50s and 60s and reflect on the views they held and codified into law ?
Whatever you believe, SCOTUS's inaction paves the way for millions of wasted taxpayer dollars funding the fight for and against gay marriage. They could have ended the debate once and for all, how they allow this to go on is beyond me. Isn't that what they are for, to decide the Constitutionality of laws? They should be disbanded for this!
It is so funny/sad to see how conservatives have gotten bent out of shape over gay marriage. Think of all the wasted money they have raised and energy they have spent trying to stop it. If even a fraction of those resources were devoted to more productive pursuits (education, biomedical research, renewable energy, etc.) we would be living in a very different world. It is hard not to notice that they did the same thing during the Civil Rights era... Tell me, as a conservative do you feel proud or ashamed when you see how your parents and grandparents behaved in the 50s and 60s and reflect on the views they held and codified into law ?
That question kind of assumes that you have to be one or the other. Proud or ashamed. I'm neither.
It also assumes that my grandparents were hosing down negros and treating them like animals. They weren't.
When it comes to the civil right's movement in the 60's I believe the good guys won. I am proud to live in a country that can fuck up royally but then have the courage to do a 180% and try to right a wrong. Sometimes it takes longer than it should but it's nice to see a willingness to admit when you are fucking up. Doesn't happen too often in this world. Now, a discussion on how bad black people fucked up this country after guilty whites started kissing their asses can be saved for another thread.
Why should anyone be ashamed about something they have no responsibility for? Do you think its moral to ask someone to feel responsible for someone else actions? Are you ashamed of the behavior of the black community, such as rampant crime, violence and fathers abandoning their children to be raised by the state? Are you ashamed when you read about how your ancestors sold their own people as slaves to Arabs and Europeans? Do you see how silly and unethical asking that question is?
Gays are what 2% of the population? Who gives a flying fuck? Seriously - get married and STFU already. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK
That question kind of assumes that you have to be one or the other. Proud or ashamed. I'm neither.
It also assumes that my grandparents were hosing down negros and treating them like animals. They weren't.
When it comes to the civil right's movement in the 60's I believe the good guys won. I am proud to live in a country that can fuck up royally but then have the courage to do a 180% and try to right a wrong. Sometimes it takes longer than it should but it's nice to see a willingness to admit when you are fucking up. Doesn't happen too often in this world. Now, a discussion on how bad black people fucked up this country after guilty whites started kissing their asses can be saved for another thread.
How amusing. If your parents or grandparents were decorated war heroes or sports stars, I have no doubt you would speak of them with pride and even brag about their accomplishments as if they were your very own. Had they invented some innovative technology or were renown artists, I am sure you would not hesitate to express pride in their public accomplishments. Had they been esteemed politicians with progressive world views or descended from the Mayflower or the Arabella ( http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102286.0 ) you would probably be quick to embrace that too. People do this all the time, but when your literal or political ancestors are demonstrably on the wrong side of history or even turn out to be the villains in the American story the convenient reaction is “I’ve got nothing to do with that. Why should I feel ashamed?” Here is one reason: you claim the same “conservative” title they do; you try to keep doors closed, just as they did. The point of feeling ashamed is to learn from the errors of those who came before you. To not repeat the same mistakes they did. To succeed (in realizing America’s values) where they miserably failed. Of course, not everyone wants to do that. Some are content, even eager, to fight the old battles even as they go down in flames and into history’s dustbin.
“When you’re a magistrate, you take the oath to uphold the law of North Carolina,” he said. “It’s up to you to honor it. I just couldn’t.”
You know what... I can respect this guy. He realizes that his job as a Magistrate is to uphold the law and when faced with a situation where the law goes against his personal convictions he does the right thing: he neither sacrifices his convictions nor allows them to interfere and resigns. Good for him.
36 states now?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH good.
I wonder if the Thumpers will try and make ADULTERY a state or federal crime?
It appears that homosexuals have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry and start a family.
The distinction of "protected class" melts away under the weight of a US citizen's fundamental right.
I, for one, am glad that government is being restrained from interfering in the private lives of citizens. Aren't you?
Strawpajamafag and Lurkerqueer and Andreisatwink can all get married now and leave thew rest of us alone.
you seem to be contradicting your self
marriage is more than a bedroom activity
The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.
The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.
The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.i do; that's why I like to watch str8 porn now and then.
Strawpajamafag and Lurkerqueer and Andreisatwink can all get married now and leave thew rest of us alone.
I would argue that the supreme court affirming homosexual unions doesn't legitimize the concept religiously. Religious Americans should consider the issue in that light and not feel threatened. As of yet religious institutions aren't being required by law to validate a gay union theologically.
You can still feel homosexuality is a sin. Look at it as the government is allowing two individuals to form a contract over assets. My opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business entirely. A person can have a private ceremony if they choose. For legal purposes they can arrange a will or contract to determine how assets are distributed if they severe their union or one should die.
congratulations! Oscar Wilde was just 100 years too early.Mr Wilde confused his wit with wisdom
Churches will sue to protect their tax exampt status when they refuse to marry fags. Fags will push the issue because its not about that...its about us excepting them. The gov will not enforce the Constitution and tell that churces are free to exercise.....in the fucking constitution...exercise their religion. They'll allow them to get sued. The fabric of the country is being destroyed. You fucking libs are allowing a tiny diseased immoral agenda driven rabble to destroy the best country in the world.
Churches will sue to protect their tax exampt status when they refuse to marry fags. Fags will push the issue because its not about that...its about us excepting them. The gov will not enforce the Constitution and tell that churces are free to exercise.....in the fucking constitution...exercise their religion. They'll allow them to get sued. The fabric of the country is being destroyed. You fucking libs are allowing a tiny diseased immoral agenda driven rabble to destroy the best country in the world.
Churches will sue to protect their tax exampt status when they refuse to marry fags. Fags will push the issue because its not about that...its about us excepting them. The gov will not enforce the Constitution and tell that churces are free to exercise.....in the fucking constitution...exercise their religion. They'll allow them to get sued. The fabric of the country is being destroyed. You fucking libs are allowing a tiny diseased immoral agenda driven rabble to destroy the best country in the world.
Churches will sue to protect their tax exampt status when they refuse to marry fags. Fags will push the issue because its not about that...its about us excepting them. The gov will not enforce the Constitution and tell that churces are free to exercise.....in the fucking constitution...exercise their religion. They'll allow them to get sued. The fabric of the country is being destroyed. You fucking libs are allowing a tiny diseased immoral agenda driven rabble to destroy the best country in the world.
Churches will sue to protect their tax exampt status when they refuse to marry fags. Fags will push the issue because its not about that...its about us excepting them. The gov will not enforce the Constitution and tell that churces are free to exercise.....in the fucking constitution...exercise their religion. They'll allow them to get sued. The fabric of the country is being destroyed. You fucking libs are allowing a tiny diseased immoral agenda driven rabble to destroy the best country in the world.
Churches can't be forced to marry ANYONE so you have nothing to worry about.bingo.
So what excuse do you think this dumb ass nimwit will use so he doesn't have to follow through?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/25/christian-pastor-promises-to-set-himself-on-fire-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized-nationwide-audio/
I hope he follows through.
He will claim God spoke to him and told him to stick around.
If God is such an intelligent being, he will be the one pouring the gasoline.
Churches can't be forced to marry ANYONE so you have nothing to worry about.
I'm sure people would've probably said the same thing about bakeries being forced to bake cakes for Sodomite weddings just a few short years ago.
Stop making a fool of yourself. :-[
Stupid fundie should be fired
If can't do the job for religious reasons then step aside
There is a reason why you don't see any Amish bus drivers
No shit.
Dumbasses are basically letting everyone know they are mentally and intellectually incapable of simple tasks.
I wonder how many of these people who are passionately against Gay Marriage are actually gay, engage in gay se,x and go to church every week praying for forgiveness.
I wonder how many of these people who are passionately against Gay Marriage are actually gay, engage in gay se,x and go to church every week praying for forgiveness.
What a difference a few years make. ::)
Liz Cheney tells '60 Minutes' that 'I was wrong' to oppose gay marriage in past
By Ledyard King
WASHINGTON – Rep. Liz Cheney told CBS' 60 Minutes she was "wrong" to oppose same-sex marriage when her objection to it caused a public split with her family, including her sister, Mary, and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Asked by reporter Lesley Stahl about the issue during an interview that aired Sunday, the Wyoming Republican said her thinking has changed on the subject.
"I was wrong. I was wrong. I love my sister very much. I love her family very much," she told Stahl. "It's a very personal issue, and very personal for my family. I believe that my dad was right. And my sister and I have had that conversation."
Liz Cheney famously broke with her family in 2013 by opposing gay marriage ahead of a failed Senate bid. Her objections caused a rift with her sister, Mary, a married lesbian. Mary's spouse, Heather Poe, posted on Facebook that year that Cheney's position was offensive and that "I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE."
"This is an issue that we have to recognize you know, as human beings that we need to work against discrimination of all kinds in our country, in our state," Cheney told 60 Minutes. "We were at an event a few nights ago and, and there was a young woman who said she doesn’t feel safe sometimes because she’s transgender. And nobody should feel unsafe. Freedom means freedom for everybody."
Cheney is running for a fourth term in Wyoming in 2022. But her fervent opposition to former President Donald Trump, who still wields great influence in the Cowboy State, has made prospects of reelection an uphill climb.
Cheney is vice chairman of a committee assembled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif,. which is investigating Trump's role in the Jan. 6 attack by hundreds of his supporters against the Capitol while Congress was certifying Joe Biden's win in the presidential election.
In the interview, Cheney criticized Biden's "really disastrous policies" involving the economy and national security. "But the alternative cannot be a man who doesn't believe in the rule of law, and who violated his oath of office," Cheney said.
She called House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy's decision to court Trump following the insurrection "unforgiveable." and said a number of Republicans on Capitol Hill have told her privately they support her standing up to the former president.
Regardless of the year, your chosen lifestyle is an abomination.
Your "victories" obtained via judicial activism will be of little consolation when you die a slow, painful AIDS-related death and then stand for your final judgment.
You have run out of legal/constitutional arguments... rational arguments... you have landed on the wrong side of history... and with nothing left to grasp onto you are throwing your "afterlife" bogeyman at me? I have three words for you: ha ha ha
Stop making a fool of yourself. ::)
Gay marriage opened the door for all of the sexual perversions we are encountering today.
Gay marriage opened the door for all of the sexual perversions we are encountering today.
Sexual perversions have been around since the beginning of time.