California Supreme Court UPHOLDS gay marriage ban.... but existing same-sex marriages to stand

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

it shouldn't be up to the people's vote to establish something that should be defined as equal (human) rights.

exactly..

For it to be defined, somebody's gotta do the defining, so it was defined. By the people. In a democratic vote.

Case closed.

The definitions should not be done by people with no legal knowledge, interpretive cognitive skill, nor agenda. In EITHER direction. Simply put,the definitions within the California Constitution are out dated and behind modern social and civil times.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

gay people cannot reproduce

Of all the dumb things said in the history of NT, this might take the cake.

 

[devildog1776]

Marraige is just a piece of paper in these modern day times.... If they want to get married let them.... They will divorce as well ... Now homosexuals raisingchildren together is another issue ...

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

it shouldn't be up to the people's vote to establish something that should be defined as equal (human) rights.

exactly..

For it to be defined, somebody's gotta do the defining, so it was defined. By the people. In a democratic vote.

Case closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation
For people like you I always have to ask this, what are your feelings on interracial marriage? Should the ability to marry between two different races dependon the acceptance of the majority? Do you think that 1967 America would have 'approved' of that lifestyle?

 

[burns1923]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by Burns1923

gay people cannot reproduce

Of all the dumb things said in the history of NT, this might take the cake.

You don't read very well, do you? Context?

My point references the fact that same-sex couples do not engage in activity that results in pregnancy.

I could refine the point for you: The cases of gay couples reproducing via in-vitro fertilization are uncommon.

If that's the instance you'd like to point to to make the argument that "See! The "gay gene" (non-existent) can be passedgenetically!", think again.

The "gay gene" cannot be passed in any instance because there is no "gay gene".

Thanks for trying, though.

The definitions should not be done by people with no legal knowledge, interpretive cognitive skill, nor agenda. In EITHER direction. Simply put, the definitions within the California Constitution are out dated and behind modern social and civil times.

The gay community have no agenda?

It's interesting how outdated the U.S. and state constitutions are when a constituency doesn't get their desired result. But had Prop. 8 beenapproved, justice would've been done, right? Right - the times, no matter how bad they get, no matter how they vary and espouse instability for asociety, should dictate law, not constitutions. Tail wagging the dog, indeed. Yikes.

Democratic votes do not require legal knowledge nor interpretive skill nor agenda.

Democratic votes simply require citizens' input.

If the gay community wants what they want, why don't they try making a legitimate case for it instead of reacting like vicious animals whenever someoneopposes them.

For people like you I always have to ask this, what are your feelings on interracial marriage? Should the ability to marry between two different races depend on the acceptance of the majority? Do you think that 1967 America would have 'approved' of that lifestyle?

People like me, huh? What kind of people is that?

I personally don't see a problem with interracial marriage. But the premise upon which you're trying to make a point is askew.


Opponents of interracial marriage in '67 largely did so on the basis that they did not like the interweaving of races because of its relatively newconception at the time, not to mention the "Wait a minute" bracing effect many felt towards what was being perceived at the time as a broadlychanging society at large.

Many opponents of gay marriage, first of all, do not believe homosexuality qualifies for delineated, serviceable rights due to the complete lack of scientificproof of its genetic, and therefore verifiable, existence. Second, opponents legitimately make the point that opposing gay marriage is just as importantlyabout drawing a line in terms of what existential infringements realistically arise in the wake of a legalizing of gay marriage. Doing so sets a precedence ofsupposed "non-discrimination" by which there is no limit on how many people can marry each other (ex. 1 person marrying 2 people or 5 people, etc).

The line must be drawn on this due to the drastic alterations it would inflict upon social, moral, ethical, and economic factors of the nation.

(And for anyone taking people to task for opposing gay marriage, remember that President Obama himself believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. If you're tearing down people of this belief, include him, too.)

 

[d0nt w0rry about it]

i'll quote kal penn's twitter for my view on this..

So if the CA Supreme Court & voters are so concerned with the "sanctity of marriage", how about we make divorce illegal too? Any takers?

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by Nako XL

well the law can still be repealed... this isn't over. it's just gonna sit for a year or two longer.

Yup

Expect a ballot initiative by next year to repeal this ban. More CA resources and funds to go down the drain.

Personally I voted NO on Prop 8 because I used to believe in giving them what they want. Gays are not going anywhere. They are here to stay so something needs to be done so why prolong it? However after the election I was put off at how Gay rights activist reacted by protesting violently, showing civil disobedience, showing their ignorance and hate against religious institutions, and ruining businesses that supported 8.

The lack of civility shown by these Gay rights activist was so sickening that now I am on the opposite side of the spectrum and against Gay Marriages so I applaud this decision.

wow... you are an idiot

Thank you for posting this. You provided me with the PERFECT EXAMPLE of why I NO longer support Gay Marriage.

So the actions of a tiny group of people (in comparison) changed the way you feel about the rights of a greater group?

 

[mytmouse76]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

It's pretty telling that some of you look at the reaction of voters (in either direction), propaganda (as furnished by religious institutions, proponents in their favor), and uproar (as subjectively accepted to provide a view 'rationally') to decide the way you lean aside from the principle issue at hand.

QFT

 

[cincoseisdos]

It's cool. Look, the new generation voted NO on 8. If not in 2010, then 2012, or 2014.

We're just delaying the inevitable.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by Burns1923

gay people cannot reproduce

Of all the dumb things said in the history of NT, this might take the cake.

You don't read very well, do you? Context?

My point references the fact that same-sex couples do not engage in activity that results in pregnancy.

I could refine the point for you: The cases of gay couples reproducing via in-vitro fertilization are uncommon.

If that's the instance you'd like to point to to make the argument that "See! The "gay gene" (non-existent) can be passed genetically!", think again.

The "gay gene" cannot be passed in any instance because there is no "gay gene".

Thanks for trying, though.

As human beings, they are capable of reproducing. Gay couples often have surrogate parents because they want the gene of at least one partner tobe present in their children. I'm not even arguing for or against a gay gene, I'm saying that as human beings they can reproduce, which apparently youhave forgotten about, or you missed that day in Sex Ed 101.

 

[DownByLaw]

There is a lot of hate in this thread

 

[lrrr]

 

[got shoes]

Originally Posted by Mr Cool Grey

Originally Posted by swizzc

WHOOOOOOTTTTTTT WHOOOOTTTTT!!!!

Gays dont deserve to be married under the constitution.

wow. Do some research my dude. Don't forget about African American's fam. I don't know if your Black, but we were on the outside looking in also.real talk

 

[jetpacunlimited]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by Jetpacunlimited

Gay is a choice, not a birth defect, not a right. It is NOT the new black and I do NOT agree with it. That said, I don't hate or discriminate against gays, they do there thing that's fine with me. But forcing us to accept there "culture" is completely unjust and selfish. Do what you do in your own privacy.

Ignorance is a choice, being a homosexual is not. Forcing them to stay in the shadows and denying them their rights is unjust and selfish.

Then by all account your chosing to be ignorant. Homosexuality is a choice sir, sorry to break that news to you. Further more, what "Rights" have wedenied homosexuals? You dudes kill me with that, nobody is against them... They are against themselves. It is fundamental as a human being Male - to - Femaleand thats just to continue human life cycle, not even counting religion. Yet woman-to-woman, male-to-male we are supposed to deem this as "normal" orapart of the process? Ok... Eitherway, it shouldn't matter "live, kiss, have sex" with your "partner". Legally though, yall ain'tmarried and thats

with me.

If your gay, you did this to yourself. Blame no one but you. Like I said earlier, I got nothing against homosexuality I have a very very very close friend whois a lesbian and I love her to death. But she doesn't act like a victim like some of you try to make them out to be.

 

[reginald noble]

 

[burns1923]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by Burns1923

gay people cannot reproduce

Of all the dumb things said in the history of NT, this might take the cake.

You don't read very well, do you? Context?

My point references the fact that same-sex couples do not engage in activity that results in pregnancy.

I could refine the point for you: The cases of gay couples reproducing via in-vitro fertilization are uncommon.

If that's the instance you'd like to point to to make the argument that "See! The "gay gene" (non-existent) can be passed genetically!", think again.

The "gay gene" cannot be passed in any instance because there is no "gay gene".

Thanks for trying, though.

As human beings, they are capable of reproducing. Gay couples often have surrogate parents because they want the gene of at least one partner to be present in their children. I'm not even arguing for or against a gay gene, I'm saying that as human beings they can reproduce, which apparently you have forgotten about, or you missed that day in Sex Ed 101.

No, I didn't forget nor miss anything.

As I explained, apparently in vain, I might've made more clear my original point that gay people "cannot reproduce" in terms of impregnating oneanother as heterosexual couples do. Biologically, gay women can become pregnant, but only via in-vitro.

Cleared up?

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

it shouldn't be up to the people's vote to establish something that should be defined as equal (human) rights.

exactly..

You probably wont respond or see this but do you think Marriage should be decided by the church and civil unions should be left to the state?

Then by all account your chosing to be ignorant. Homosexuality is a choice sir, sorry to break that news to you. Further more, what "Rights" have we denied homosexuals? You dudes kill me with that, nobody is against them... They are against themselves. It is fundamental as a human being Male - to - Female and thats just to continue human life cycle, not even counting religion. Yet woman-to-woman, male-to-male we are supposed to deem this as "normal" or apart of the process? Ok... Eitherway, it shouldn't matter "live, kiss, have sex" with your "partner". Legally though, yall ain't married and thats

with me.

If your gay, you did this to yourself. Blame no one but you. Like I said earlier, I got nothing against homosexuality I have a very very very close friend who is a lesbian and I love her to death. But she doesn't act like a victim like some of you try to make them out to be.

Nice points sir.

See for me, I don't know for certain people are born gay or not. But people turning gay puts me in a mindset of its a choice. I've seen people bringrace into it, I didn't choose to be the caramel coat I am. God made me like this. Ladies calm down.

But seriously, I feel its a choice. People make it everyday. Now don't get offended NT. I know how a lot of you get out of pocket and then it ends indrama. But it seems a lot like other sexual things except its been turned into a lifestyle. Walking around nude is designed for behind closed doors but weoutlaw it and make laws against it. Public indecency. I mean its just my opinion that hey, maybe homosexuality is a sickness of the mind or soul. Therehasn't been a gay gene found or anything. Maybe it does have something to with the unseen. The human spirit/soul.

 

[mytmouse76]

Originally Posted by Jetpacunlimited

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by Jetpacunlimited

Gay is a choice, not a birth defect, not a right. It is NOT the new black and I do NOT agree with it. That said, I don't hate or discriminate against gays, they do there thing that's fine with me. But forcing us to accept there "culture" is completely unjust and selfish. Do what you do in your own privacy.

Ignorance is a choice, being a homosexual is not. Forcing them to stay in the shadows and denying them their rights is unjust and selfish.

Then by all account your chosing to be ignorant. Homosexuality is a choice sir, sorry to break that news to you. Further more, what "Rights" have we denied homosexuals? You dudes kill me with that, nobody is against them... They are against themselves. It is fundamental as a human being Male - to - Female and thats just to continue human life cycle, not even counting religion. Yet woman-to-woman, male-to-male we are supposed to deem this as "normal" or apart of the process? Ok... Eitherway, it shouldn't matter "live, kiss, have sex" with your "partner". Legally though, yall ain't married and thats

with me.

If your gay, you did this to yourself. Blame no one but you. Like I said earlier, I got nothing against homosexuality I have a very very very close friend who is a lesbian and I love her to death. But she doesn't act like a victim like some of you try to make them out to be.

how would you feel if one day your friend found her life partner and wanted to marry her but couldn't...would it still be

with you? (for the sake of arguement lets just assume she does want to marrysome day)

 

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

it shouldn't be up to the people's vote to establish something that should be defined as equal (human) rights.

exactly..

You probably wont respond or see this but do you think Marriage should be decided by the church and civil unions should be left to the state?

I think the term civil unions should be abandoned because my point isn't about isolating people, their choices, or feelings. If you have tohave a separate term for same sex marriage, there's a problem with that. You can have a church interpretation, but the one that should matter to ourcountry as a whole is a common state by state definition.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

it shouldn't be up to the people's vote to establish something that should be defined as equal (human) rights.

exactly..

You probably wont respond or see this but do you think Marriage should be decided by the church and civil unions should be left to the state?

Then by all account your chosing to be ignorant. Homosexuality is a choice sir, sorry to break that news to you. Further more, what "Rights" have we denied homosexuals? You dudes kill me with that, nobody is against them... They are against themselves. It is fundamental as a human being Male - to - Female and thats just to continue human life cycle, not even counting religion. Yet woman-to-woman, male-to-male we are supposed to deem this as "normal" or apart of the process? Ok... Eitherway, it shouldn't matter "live, kiss, have sex" with your "partner". Legally though, yall ain't married and thats

with me.

If your gay, you did this to yourself. Blame no one but you. Like I said earlier, I got nothing against homosexuality I have a very very very close friend who is a lesbian and I love her to death. But she doesn't act like a victim like some of you try to make them out to be.

I mean its just my opinion that hey, maybe homosexuality is a sickness of the mind or soul.


You mean like all other sicknesses chosen?

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

it shouldn't be up to the people's vote to establish something that should be defined as equal (human) rights.

exactly..

You probably wont respond or see this but do you think Marriage should be decided by the church and civil unions should be left to the state?

I think the term civil unions should be abandoned because my point isn't about isolating people, their choices, or feelings. If you have to have a separate term for same sex marriage, there's a problem with that. You can have a church interpretation, but the one that should matter to our country as a whole is a common state by state definition.

I peep you. Well as long as it doesn't get to the point of forcing churches to marry them. I know it will but I guess its wishful thinking.

You mean like all other sicknesses chosen?
Not like cancer or stuff like that. I'm talking about bondage, masturbation, stuff in that field. I'll stop there

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by Jetpacunlimited

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by Jetpacunlimited

Gay is a choice, not a birth defect, not a right. It is NOT the new black and I do NOT agree with it. That said, I don't hate or discriminate against gays, they do there thing that's fine with me. But forcing us to accept there "culture" is completely unjust and selfish. Do what you do in your own privacy.

Ignorance is a choice, being a homosexual is not. Forcing them to stay in the shadows and denying them their rights is unjust and selfish.

Further more, what "Rights" have we denied homosexuals? You dudes kill me with that, nobody is against them.

really? Some states ban gay couples from adopting. But carry on...

 

[dendanskesimon]

how can you restrict someone from a legal binding contract though. Thats like saying "nah, you cant have a pre-nup if your in an interracial marriage,sorry"

it doesnt make sense to only provide certain people with a legal opportunity and take it away from others

 

[lobotomybeats]

I bet this guy wishes he didn't choose to be gay!

or this guy

or this guy..

I guess had they not chosen to invite that world of hatred into their lives they would still be around. Please people, before choosing your sexuality look atthe mistakes these guys made. Their deaths could have easily been prevented had they not made that decision to be gay.

 

[lifelessons]

Originally Posted by got shoes

Originally Posted by Mr Cool Grey

Originally Posted by swizzc

WHOOOOOOTTTTTTT WHOOOOTTTTT!!!!

Gays dont deserve to be married under the constitution.

wow. Do some research my dude. Don't forget about African American's fam. I don't know if your Black, but we were on the outside looking in also. real talk

no e thuggin but if you came at me w/ that african american argument you would get straight dropped.....jesus could be standing right there and i stillwould....bringing that up is so god damn offensive that it makes no god damn sense.....the only thing a gay dude is denied is marriage....freakingmarriage......blacks in the past would've jumped for joy if that was the only thing they were denied back in the day....