Thread: Prop 8 overturned : Bio devastated....

All I can say is the Bible says Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve...

So, once again the people have spoken and a politician (a judge that lays down policy is one) decides they know better.

Not surprised.

I've got nothing against gay marriage. As long as both guys are hot!

Excellent decision. I see no reason why same-sex couples should not have the same rights as the rest of us. Always felt the law was unconstitutional. I know for many this is a hot-button topic, but I think it's a no-brainer. You can't legalize descrimination. Equal rights for everyone is the only sensible way to go.

I'm hardly devastated Mino. I don't live in California. I do think it's funny that an amendment to the California constitution already went before the California supreme court and passed. this is hardly the last word as the article says. it will have to go before the US supreme court before a final ruling is allowed to take place. The funny thing is this single federal judge feels he is more qualified to rule on California's constitution than the entire California supreme court. Politics has run amok here in the US. This is twice now that a judge has overruled the desire of the voting public in California.

If the gay and lesbian community want to marry I don't care. This is why religion and state should not be combined. Marriage is a religious ceremony and something that shouldn't be governed.

Originally Posted by DOMS

So, once again the people have spoken and a politician (a judge that lays down policy is one) decides they know better.

Not surprised.

This is what pisse me off. MILLIONS of people voted and this judge thinks he alone can overturn it. This is the country we live in???

Originally Posted by MDR

Excellent decision. I see no reason why same-sex couples should not have the same rights as the rest of us. Always felt the law was unconstitutional. I know for many this is a hot-button topic, but I think it's a no-brainer. You can't legalize descrimination. Equal rights for everyone is the only sensible way to go.

Actually they kinda already had the same rights. Anyone (straight or gay) could marry someone of the opposite sex and no one could marry someone of the same sex. Women gaining the right to vote was the fulfillment of equal rights. Perhaps gay marriage is not 'the same rights' but a different 'right'... Maybe that's bullshit but I do wonder if we are truly talking about equal rights.

Originally Posted by troubador

Actually they kinda already had the same rights. Anyone (straight or gay) could marry someone of the opposite sex and no one could marry someone of the same sex. Women gaining the right to vote was the fulfillment of equal rights. Perhaps gay marriage is not 'the same rights' but a different 'right'... Maybe that's bullshit but I do wonder if we are truly talking about equal rights.

The flaw in this argument goes like this:

Anyone, gay or straight, could marry someone of the opposite sex, but only straight people could marry for love.

Originally Posted by DOMS

So, once again the people have spoken and a politician (a judge that lays down policy is one) decides they know better.

Not surprised.

This is a real though one...clearly the public has spoken in favor of a marriage ban, and judge has decided that the people are wrong and should not be in charge of themselves regarding this issue. I support people having as much control as possible over their own destiny the overwhelming majority of times...but not in every case. If we allowed the people to dictate every law and issue then the southern states would quite possibly still be segregated...which is unacceptable. I very rarely go against our own self determination right and side with the an overturning judicial action, but in this case...I'm with the CA judge. I find a gay marriage ban belligerently discriminatory.

Originally Posted by Jodi

This is why religion and state should not be combined. .

this has nothing to do with combining religion and state.

Originally Posted by DOMS

So, once again the people have spoken and a politician (a judge that lays down policy is one) decides they know better.

Not surprised.

Yay for democracy!Lol...

I guess I am one of the few who really don't give a shit either way.

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

I guess I am one of the few who really don't give a shit either way.

Ditto.

let the queers be just as miserable as the rest of us!

Originally Posted by lnvanry

This is a real though one...clearly the public has spoken in favor of a marriage ban, and judge has decided that the people are wrong and should not be in charge of themselves regarding this issue. I support people having as much control as possible over their own destiny the overwhelming majority of times...but not in every case. If we allowed the people to dictate every law and issue then the southern states would quite possibly still be segregated...which is unacceptable. I very rarely go against our own self determination right and side with the an overturning judicial action, but in this case...I'm with the CA judge. I find a gay marriage ban belligerently discriminatory.

Bullshit.

The vast majority of Americans supported the end to segregation. The authorities back then were enacting the will of the people.

I don't care much if gays get married, what I do care about is politicians, who get almost everything wrong, telling American citizens that what they want doesn't matter.

A ban on gay marriage? We don't care what you want. Overturned.

You don't want universal health care? You're going to have it anyway.

You're trying to restore order and safety to your state by getting rid of the illegals? We need the Hispanic vote. Overturned.


This shit has gone on too much lately and needs to end.

Originally Posted by DOMS

This shit has gone on too much lately and needs to end.

Vote in November!!!

The whole concept of marriage is rediculous to begin. It a custom passed to us from centuries ago that has long out grown its purpose.

I can see why the judge banned sam sex marriage. If two lesbiens are to get divorced, how are both females going to get everything?? If two gay men get divorsed how are both going to lose everything??? this could set some dangerous precidents that will spill over into traditional marriages divorces.

^lol

You'd almost think divorce lawyers would be lobbying hard for same-sex marriage.

"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce, but for a lot of couples that benefit is very complicated and very costly in ways that heterosexual couples would never have to experience."
Joyce Kauffman, Boston divorce lawyer who has handled a dozen same-sex divorce cases

More @ Same-Sex Divorce Challenges the Legal System - washingtonpost.com

Originally Posted by MyK 3.0

The whole concept of marriage is rediculous to begin. It a custom passed to us from centuries ago that has long out grown its purpose.

I can see why the judge banned sam sex marriage. If two lesbiens are to get divorced, how are both females going to get everything?? If two gay men get divorsed how are both going to lose everything??? this could set some dangerous precidents that will spill over into traditional marriages divorces.

you should write a book

What is not being discussed in the media is that this judge is gay, he's in the closet. Also if gays can marry why not polygymists? Isnt that discrimination? Discuss.

Originally Posted by MyK 3.0

If two lesbiens are to get divorced, how are both females going to get everything?? If two gay men get divorsed how are both going to lose everything???

LMAO
Being divorced, that is so true!
Reps.....

Originally Posted by bigmoe65

What is not being discussed in the media is that this judge is gay, he's in the closet. Also if gays can marry why not polygymists? Isnt that discrimination? Discuss.

We still get a second or third wife in my community, but it's not on paper. That's the way we get around it at least.

Originally Posted by Built

The flaw in this argument goes like this:

Anyone, gay or straight, could marry someone of the opposite sex, but only straight people could marry for love.

I don't believe it's a flaw if we are talking about rights in the legal sense because to the best of my limited knowledge the laws governing marriage aren't contingent on whether or not the individuals in question love each other. You'd have to be able to classify 'people in love' and 'people not in love' as groups able to be discriminated against. Have there been any court cases directly about this?

Originally Posted by Built

The flaw in this argument goes like this:

Anyone, gay or straight, could marry someone of the opposite sex, but only straight people could marry for love.

Originally Posted by troubador

I don't believe it's a flaw if we are talking about rights in the legal sense because to the best of my limited knowledge the laws governing marriage aren't contingent on whether or not the individuals in question love each other. You'd have to be able to classify 'people in love' and 'people not in love' as groups able to be discriminated against. Have there been any court cases directly about this?

Nope, they aren't, and if you check again, that's not what I said. It isn't that straights MUST marry for love - clearly there are loveless straight marriages (as sad as that sounds). Rather, in this context, it is that gays, if forbidden same-sex marriage, are UNABLE to marry for love.

Originally Posted by Jodi

If the gay and lesbian community want to marry I don't care. This is why religion and state should not be combined. Marriage is a religious ceremony and something that shouldn't be governed.

But they have the ceremonies regardless, I have been to three gay marriages, two for men and 1 for lesbians, said their vows, kissed and everything, they wear the rings, one couple even had a surname change. All that these folks want is the legal side to become official....no one is stopping homosexuality by denying the legal rights to be seen as a married couple, they still live together and call themselves married, ceremonies take place, they go on honeymoons, they go through all the same channels to be bound financially same stuff that is done in one action when a hetero couple gets married, power of attorney, name changes, etc, etc....

Originally Posted by Built

It isn't that straights MUST marry for love - clearly there are loveless straight marriages (as sad as that sounds). Rather, in this context, it is that gays, if forbidden same-sex marriage, are UNABLE to marry for love.

My argument alloted for the fact that straights don't always marry for love. That was part of my point. The right in question is not if all those in love are allowed to get married; again that would be a different right. Btw, I mean 'right' in the strict sense. If we were to read current rights concerning marriage, I don't know that any of them would say anything legally important about love.

For example: The legal right to hunt is not based on 'you may hunt animals you like to eat'. It is legal to hunt deer and illegal to hunt bald eagles; this right and limitation applies to most US citizens.
You can't make the argument 'deer eaters have the right hunt the animal they like to eat but bald eagle eaters are discriminated against because they can't hunt the animal they like to eat'. This is because deer hunters do not have the right to 'hunt animals they like to eat', they have the right to hunt deer.

Straights do not have the literal right to marry for love. It is a subsequent consequence. Maybe that should be considered in the argument for gay marriage but I still maintain that it is indeed a different right.

Originally Posted by troubador

My argument alloted for the fact that straights don't always marry for love. That was part of my point. The right in question is not if all those in love are allowed to get married; again that would be a different right. Btw, I mean 'right' in the strict sense. If we were to read current rights concerning marriage, I don't know that any of them would say anything legally important about love.

For example: The legal right to hunt is not based on 'you may hunt animals you like to eat'. It is legal to hunt deer and illegal to hunt bald eagles; this right and limitation applies to most US citizens.

You can't make the argument 'deer eaters have the right hunt the animal they like to eat but bald eagle eaters are discriminated against because they can't hunt the animal they like to eat'. This is because deer hunters do not have the right to 'hunt animals they like to eat', they have the right to hunt deer.

Bald eagle hunters are also allowed to hunt dear. It's just pointless - if they find eating deer to be distasteful.

Originally Posted by troubador

Straights do not have the literal right to marry for love. It is a subsequent consequence. Maybe that should be considered in the argument for gay marriage but I still maintain that it is indeed a different right.

It's the only part that matters though, isn't it?. Gays DO have the right to marry. But if same-sex marriage is illegal, they don't have the right to marry the ones they love. That's the whole problem in a nutshell.