The winner is: the legal profession!
What is going to happen to the people have got married between the time the law went into effect and Tuesday's election?
Are their marriages now null and void? Law suit.
They can get married, but other same-sex couples can't? Law suit.
What a stupid, pointless, counterproductive decision by the voters of California. |
|
|
What the California voters had to do Tuesday became necessary because of liberal, activist judges. When activist judges make rulings based on their feelings and not rule of law and overturn legislation or referrendums that are overwhelmingly supported by the citizens because they make up some constitutional protection that is not there, the citizens are left with no choice but to ammend the Constitution with the same rule so that the Supreme Court cannot over rule it. Without defacto laws being enacted by an over-reaching judiciary, this kind of Amendment would not be necessary. The liberal left knows they cannot get their agenda enacted through the normal legislative or referrendum process because it is not desired by the majority. They use the courts to force their will on the majority using leftist judges. The voters used the Constitution to tie the hands of these activist judges. The amendment was not stupid, pointless or counterproductive. It was necessary to give the power back to "the people". With regard to the lawsuits over the already approved "marriages", the ruling by the courts said that the definition of marriage bill was unconstitutional (using some bogus, delusional interpretation). They did not legalize same sex marriage; they just ruled that the definition law was unconstitutional. All the gay activist assumed wrongly that the ruling made same sex marriage legal. They overstepped their bounds. I never understood how they made the leap that the court ruling made same sex marriage legal. In my humble opinion, none of the marriage licenses issued are truly legal. I am sure law suits will be filed, but the issue has now been settled until another Constitutional Amendment is proposed to refine marriage. |
|
|
Far more egregious than overstepping legal boundaries in attempting to hijack the California constitution is the move among gay Christians (I use the term loosely as it is an oxymoron) to hijack Scripture and set up their own theology (again, used loosely) to justify their sin as normal. The gay illuminati will stop at nothing to enthrone themselves above God and law and historical precedent, and they often do it in an ugly, strong-arming way. Praise God for the marriage victories this week! |
|
The Pet Goat, sir, the people mean more than a Court, the people have spoken. Lawyers should be hanged, as they are the ones responsible in the first place for the activist courts.
Don Juan, if "frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their arse"... stop with the IF's. There is plenty of time to decertify prior to the election, stop with the ifs... In a very real sense... THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN
There is nothing gay about being perverted. God did not make a person homosexual, anymore than he made a person an alcoholic, gambler, drug addict, liar, theif, murderer, etc... Whatever the inclination towards sin is, there is always a choice involved.
Oh, I'm not a "homophobe", I don't FEAR a kweer, I'm just disgusted by public behaviour. |
|
|
I think you need to get back to what you were doing with Don Jose and let the grown ups handle the big things like "Constitutional Law" and the will of the governed... |
|
|
Don Juan, sir, the Saracuda has more character an eloquence than your pedantic diatribes supporting homosexuality as normal. |
|
Not for the "ruling class", you arrogant elitist scumbag.
Judges are to rule based on the law as it was commonly understood at the time of passing,
not based on their own desired social outcomes, then "backed up" in whatever way they try to justify it.
They are to rule "impartially", not with "empathy" as Lord Buttock has stated. |
|
Gays probably voted 100 to 1 for Obama and probably yelled "the people have spoken" . Now that "the people" spoke out and said that marrage is between a man and a women, all of a sudden the system is broken?
Sorry, but you can throw a hissy fit all you want but that is how it is. If the government would just do away with the married and single tax laws I think we would have less of an issues. |
|
the anti-same sex marriage crowd seems to think that "the people" get to define what marriage is? For years, the government has defined it: how old you have to be, that you can only be married to one person, that a white person and a black person cannot marry, how you can get out of a marriage, etc. "The people" never defined these aspects of marriage. So why is marriage, a legal contract issued by the state, suddenly to be defined by "the people"??
I think I see conservatives being on the wrong side yet again of a civil rights issue. It took 20 years from the time California struck down prohibitions against mixed race marriages until the US Supreme Court decision struck down all laws against mixed race marriage, so I'd say same-sex marriage rights are pretty much on track. |
|
THank God this sickness hasn't spread across the country as it has in the bay area... and the bigger cities of California.
What the LGBT people want is complete acceptance of their way of life. They want their perverse lifestyle accepted throughout the country which means it would be taught as acceptable in public and possibly private schools and forced to be taught in other places.... maybe churches as well. They have pretty much the same benefits as married couples but they are not accepted and should not be as a married couple. THis is the real issue, acceptance. They are not satisified with equal benefits..
The people have spoken clearly that they do not accept a homo marriage. If failed in California, one of the most liberal states in the union, and also in AZ and Florida. Are we homophobic? Not in the least bit... I am not afraid of a homo ... I don't like their perverse agenda...period! |
|
It seems to me that the homosexuals need to change their chosen label,"gay," to something else like "sad." What do they have to be gay about? The word "gay" originally meant "happy," but they highjacked that word and changed the meaning of what was once a perfectly delightful word to one that now makes people recoil in disgust. To call themselves "gay" (when they demonstrate that they are the most miserable people on earth) is an oxymoron, just like "gay" marriage. Call it what it is . SIN.
Praise God the people of California have once again stood up against this atrocity and voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN! |
|
|
that you describe the issue, referring to same sex marriage as part of a homo agenda, that your feelings of hatred and disgust seem to be dictating your point of view on this issue. Is there any part of you with concerns for another adult's right to marry the person of their choosing and having that marriage legally protected? What about the children of same sex couples and the need to create the best, most secure environment for them? I hear conservatives speak about married parents being so advantageous to the security of children. Why do the children of gay parents not deserve this too? |
|
|
blow of a new democratic presidency. Thank goodness CA, AZ and FL passed these Constitutional amendments. I hope many other states follow suit.. |
|
No one is telling them they can't live together and have the same benefits as married couples... That in fact is happening in CA. I'm not against them having a quality of life that is on par with a married person.
The problem is that this homosexual agenda isn't satisfied with the above.. they want to enforce this as acceptable behavior on the rest of society... which is the problem... This behavior is not acceptable in our society.
I don't care if homosexuals hang out and live together... they can have medical benefits and all the rest but don't tell me that it is an acceptable part of society. If it were Obama, Biden who are as far left as any politician can be would have stood up and said yes to homo marriage but they did not because they know that the country is right and it would have cost them.
Wheather you like it or not this country is right of center and is mostly conservative in its ways... I don't want my children growing up in a world that is perverse and weird as it is in San Francisco... I was born in SF in the early sixties and left there before the radical homo agenda came in... It was a great place to live as a kid but now it is a cess pool of sexual perversion and rebellion... I know first hand of all that the homo agenda is because I have lived in it for a time... I don't live in CA anymore...
Be happy with what you have in civil unions... |
|
Whether it's the US or individual state constitutions, these documents belong to the people. Branches of government would not exist but for these documents with the approval of the majority.
When the majority of the electorate decides through free and fair elections everybody needs to shut up and color. The Judiciary or any other branch of government is not granted the power to overturn the constitutional decisions of the people.
Break out the crayons, the majority of Californians have spoken.
It may be hard for some to comprehend, but that's the way it works. |
|
|
Let me clarify something... my point about living in SF... What I meant to say is that I lived around this agenda but was not directly involved in the Homo lifestyle... I am a heterosexaual man and have been all my life... |
|
Did you know that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and Christ,,, and he will reign forever more... Even you will be a subject of the KING....
Rebellion will be crushed!!!
Long live the KING!!!! |
|
My greatest fear in the last two years was that America had finally conceded personal rights and liberties to the government. It seemed that no matter what the people demanded at the ballot box, some Supreme Court would just declare it "unconstitutional."
The people of California give me hope that "we the people" still intend to hold our government to the "rule of law" and not let the government "rule us." |
|
DanNV:
So true. At some point there needs to be an end to the use of government by tiny groups of people to force their will upon the majority.
The people need to start fighting back. |
|
Liberals continue to try to enact legislation through the courts rather than through a vote by "the people". Immigrants and the uneducated among us that don't understand the US Constitution or their State Constitutions can get frustrated, but they need to understand the concept of rule of law before they hit the voting booth.
Liberal activist lawyers are eager to exploit their ignorance by bringing about frivolous lawsuits.
Simple fact... marriage is not a right. Marriage is a legally defined status, a contract if you will, entered into by two consenting parties. It is not a right as by it's nature is not individual. Rights belong to individuals. |
|
|
The homosexual has seeked to impose Gay marriage on the people by judicial fiat. They could have lobby the California politician or used the initative route but they knew it would not work. Democracy does not work when minority try to impose their will by fear and intimidation. If your goals was not imposing acceptance of your lifestyle on other you would have went the civil union route. The homosexual community need to take a good look at their leaders in California, as realize they have done them more harm than good. Respect for individual rights is one thing but imposing acceptance one lifestyle at the expense of another is something a democracy can not tolerate. |
|
Congratulated!!!!! My hats off to you who have fought the good fight and are victorious!!!!!
CHEERS!!!! CHEERS!!!!
THe democratic system works and the people have spoken once again... Now MA and Conn can have the dubious distinction of being the most liberal states in the union... perhaps those couples can go there and live... Take pelosi with you too....
|
|
Don't quote the Bible... as if you knew anything of what it says or the truth that it contains.... its poor salesmenship... you are neither a Christian or a conservative... If you are quoting it then why don't you live by it....
donnie... are you struggling with your sexuality???? |
|
enough said... you lost.... get over it!!!
|
|
Don Juan stated,
"The decision itself was not "activist," but you'd probably need to make it through your first year of law school to understand why."
Isn't that assumption part of the problem...that you need law school training to be able to understand the clear and beautiful language of the constitution? |
|
Prop 8 was never an initiative to create equality for an oppressed people class.
What it in fact was - was a referendum on HOW marriage would be defined.
Society has legitimate rationale in defining words.
Marriage has always been the sacred and lifelong union of one man and one woman.
This isn't an issue of exclusion of any one. Since marriage IS just such a union. ANY WOMAN and ANY MAN - with the exceptions outlined by law - relatives, and children, etc.
The people of California have the right to define the word the way they wish - and all they've done is maintain the definition of the word that is understood for generations... |
|
|
to "be happy in what you have: civil unions." Did Steven also say to black people to be happy with that separate water fountain? I'm reaching the point of exasperation to find that so many in our country ignore the law when it comes to social issues they personally find distasteful. This should be rather distressing. While I take comfort that the legal system will eventually correct this injustice, it is depressing to think just how many people would impose their religious- or hate-based vision of discrimination on society. |
|
My question for you is:how do you justify
your oppression of polyamorous groups who
feel they should have the same protections
that you claim are basic rights of gay
couples. |
|
"There are certain realms into which the majority ("the people") cannot enter. How would you feel if we passed a constitutional amendment outlawing Christianity? "
Then we would not live in America that was founded on religious freedoms and that had nothing to do with homosexuality. Nice try but these things have nothing to do with each other
|
|
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10909847?source=most_emailed
I would like to see you make another "home invasion video" that represents the facts of who besides Mormons voted to ban gay marriage in California.
How about a video showing two black men or latino men invading a gay couple's home to ransack their house looking for a marriage licence to rip up.
Yeah, it's too easy for gays to pick on the Mormons while at the same time refering to themselves as the "new blacks".
Ironic that over 70% of the black and a majority of latino popoulation voted to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
Where is the outcry from the gay community against the black and latino community?
Crickets!
Makes me think of Lawrence O Donnell when confronted on his tirade against Mormons earlier this year, when pressed, he had to admit he was to much of a coward to deliver such a tirade aganst Islam.
Rings true.
Cowards. |
|
|
do with same sex marriage? "Groups" are not a protected class of people. Race, religion, and gender are protected. The state should not be determining who can marry whom based on race, religion or gender. It violates the California constitution. |
|
|
supporters be any different than the man they elected as President? Obama and his leftist illuminati ideals will try to rewrite the Constitution, so his followers can be forgiven for not understanding the document that has become outdated and doesn't apply to the America of today. |
|
I know you don't want to answer this question.
The "prominent lawyer" anecdote amounts to little
more than: don't try to catch me up in my
hypocricy.
So let me try it again. Is it a violation of
their rights to deny polyamorists and all the
other varieties of human sexual behavior the same
rights as gays. |
|
I work with grade 7-12 youth.
When they say something is "gay" they clearly mean wrong or stupid.
It gives me hope for the rising generation. |
|
The new extreme liberal interpretation of tolerance is htier sectular world view is the only view. Gay like to redefine the meaning of words to fits their world view. But htey don't have to respect any disenting view. Civil Union give gays the same basic rights as they would have in marriage without destroying the religious core views people have.
Tolerance is accepting that other may have a differnt view than you and honoring their individual right to not agree with your world view. Acceptance of other opinion is crucial to a true democracy. James Madison warn of the tyrany of the minority.
The gay community real needs examine at its leaders. Are they interested in individual rights or imposing their world view? Are their tactics making your live better or worst? Had they tried to open a dialogue with the people of California people instead of intimate and go around would they not be better off. |
|
This question is also for you.
Is it a violation of
their rights to deny polyamorists and all the
other varieties of human sexual behavior the same
rights as gays |
|
Michael, claiming that same sex marriage supporters are being intolerant of your views is like saying civil rights advocates are being intolerant of the views of white supremacy groups. When someone holds views that deny a group a right (in this case, to marry the person of his or her choice) and possibly violate the law (as in practicing race, religion or gender discrimination) it is NOT intolerant to object. Gee, there are actually people who think it's a civic responsibility to object to law breaking and civil rights violations.
I find it terribly discouraging to realize how many people in this country continue to permit laws and social policies that hurt a group, so long as they don't get effected. |
|
is that gays don't choose to be gay. They are either born this way or a life event shapes them to be this way. Who would choose to be different and ostracized by society?
I don't think gays should get married but I voted No on Prop 8 b/c I think it went too far.
I do think gays should have civil unions with all rights of inheritance and the same rights as far as health insurance and other benefits. It seems a tragedy that a gay partner couldn't visit their loved one at the hospital.
Prop 8 was passed by voters b/c parents are afraid their children will indoctrinated with the gay lifestyle at schools. |
|
My question is aimed at you defending your
judgment that denying gays the right to marry
is hatefull.I'm not asking you to evaluate
likely court decisions.
The reason for this is there is no reasonable basis for distinguishing gays from the other
people who engage in other "unusual" sexual
practices. I think you know this and that is why
you keep dodging the question. Either they all
get in or none of them do.
And its a pretty hard sell to tell people that
denying Jim Bob his nuptial with Henrietta the
goose violates Jims right. So you lie!
|
|
No one requires a government sanction in order to love. The primary purpose of government sanctioning of marriage is due to the inheritance rights of the potential offspring.
Since no offspring can be created between and male-male union or a female-female union, there is no need for the state to involve itself.
I would think anything gay people wish to accomplish through 'marriage' could just as easily be accomplished through contract or power of attorney documents.
A very cynical part of me thinks it is not so much the gays pushing for this as it is the divorce attorneys! Just think of the untapped market!
If 0bama brings back the marriage penalty to the tax code I suspect we will see a HUGE drop in the number of gays rushing to the alter.
|
|
Donjuan: "There are certain realms into which the majority ("the people") cannot enter. How would you feel if we passed a constitutional amendment outlawing Christianity?"
I'd feel the legislature overstepped its bounds, and that the Federal Courts should declare the law unConstitutional as it applies to our US Constitution. Why? Because the government, at that point, would have violated specific prohibitions in Amendment #1.
A constitutional amendment is a different story, but I fundamentally disagree that the American people would vote to outlaw any religion by Constitutional Amendment, even if they disagree with its principles or core beliefs. But we would have the right to do so if we all saw it the same way. Likelihood? Zero. |
|
Donjuan: "There are certain realms into which the majority ("the people") cannot enter. How would you feel if we passed a constitutional amendment outlawing Christianity?"
I'd feel the legislature overstepped its bounds, and that the Federal Courts should declare the law unConstitutional as it applies to our US Constitution. Why? Because the government, at that point, would have violated specific prohibitions in Amendment #1.
A constitutional amendment is a different story, but I fundamentally disagree that the American people would vote to outlaw any religion by Constitutional Amendment, even if they disagree with its principles or core beliefs. But we would have the right to do so if we all saw it the same way. Likelihood? Zero.
|
|
DonJuan: "The right to marry is a fundamental right."
I think the people have just said it is not a fundamental right to unilaterally change the definition of marriage that others rely upon, especially when there is a specific alternative equal in every way: civil unions. It is, however, your right to live with who you want without any agreement, just as it is your right to enter a civil union with anyone with whom you desire to make that agreement. Hence, no violation of anyone's rights.
The Constitution guarantees rights not enumerated, but it does not guarantee anything and everything you wish to call a right. That is the principle the Court relied upon when making their decision to strike down the earlier legislation. That is why the only resolution for the will of the people to override the Court that is supposed to interpret laws, not create new ones, is a Constitutional Amendment. Those are deliberately difficult to obtain, especially when begun as a referendum of the people. That is how the republic avoids "tyranny of the majority". The "majority" in these cases must be far more unified than normal to achieve such a goal.
|
|
Let's create a parallel: Let's say you decided to walk into General Motors' boardroom and declare yourself the Chairman. GM already has a Chairman, but you decide unilaterally you're going to redefine who their Chairman is. You assert that since the Constitution doesn't have any specific prohibition against your becoming the Chairman, that you have that right. By the Court's application of the law, the justices feel you WOULD have the right to redefine who the Chairman of GM is, without the consent of anyone else, because GM isn't doing too well anyway, thousands of people are about to lose their jobs, and society will be damaged by having so many people on unemployment. When they make decisions that include factors other than the bare essentials of the law, what the Court disregards is the rights of the rest of GM's board to choose their own Chairman. As it applies to this case of Proposition 8, gays just walked in and unilaterally decided they have a right to redefine what the institution of marriage is, with no regard for the rights of millions of people who already defined it for themselves and society. We already have a definition, if you want another arrangement, call it something else.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
The reason government got involved in the marriage issue was not about inheritance but rather to regulate an institution that had become commonplace. Government now prevents adults from marrying children and from marrying more than one person at a time. Government also regulates how to get out of a marriage (divorce) and what happens to kids after a divorce. None of this has anything to do with any particular religion's interpretation of marriage. It's also a source of revenue: charging for marriage licenses. Government has no interest in the sexual aspect of marriage, or whether a marriage produces children. Therefore it makes no sense to regulate the gender of those choosing to marry. |
|
|
I heard a great explanation of rights. Basically, it is a fallacy that a gay person has less rights than a straight person. A straight women may marry a man. A gay woman may marry a man. We have exactly the same rights. I can not marry a woman and either can a gay woman. We both have the same restriction. Under the law we are equal. It's really that simple even though that may not be the politically correct viewpoint. |
|
"As it applies to this case of Proposition 8, gays just walked in and unilaterally decided they have a right to redefine what the institution of marriage is, with no regard for the rights of millions of people who already defined it for themselves and society. We already have a definition, if you want another arrangement, call it something else."
I think you hit the nail on the head. People ultimately define marriage for themselves. So what's wrong with gay people (and their many supporters) defining it as "a legal arrangement between two adults" instead of the more common "a legal arrangement between two adults of different sexes." I mean, it used to be "a legal arrangement between two adults of the same race and different sexes." The definition of marriage keeps changing, I know I have a hard time keeping up with it. It used to be "a socially required arrangement between a male and a pregnant female." Does anyone know of a place that lists all the various definitions of marriage? |
|
Is it a violation of
their rights to deny polyamorists and all the
other varieties of human sexual behavior the same
rights as gays? Isn't it harder to make claim
(denying gays the right to marry violates their
right) than it is to defend that claim. But avoiding that defense only makes it appear
that you can't defend it. So what are you afraid of? |
|
|
support the notion, which I hope you reject, that a black person cannot marry a white person and vice versa. I could also say, you have freedom of religion, so long as you worship a Christian god. Today the law says you can marry whomever you want as long as that person is the opposite sex. Why? What's the reason for defining marriage this way? Is it just because of tradition? Is it arbitrary? I think that's where we're heading: people are realizing that there's no real reason to create this artificially limiting definition. |
|
It seems some people have not unstanding of what are rights. A right is not something government gives you. A right is something you have with or without government. Gays would like to say their struggle for marriage to that of Women and African America struggle for voting and civil rights. But it is a deservice to both struggles to make that comparison.
Open dialogue is what is needed. Open your mind and actually have an intelluctual exchange. Are you affraid of a little self reflection. |
|
The citizens should have also put a constitutional ammendment on the balot that prevented the courts (all of them) from:
1. Making law vs ruling on constitutionality
2. Neither the Legislature or the Courts can overrule referendum's passed in elections by the people.
3. Judges that rule outside their authority are automatically stripped of their judgeship and disbarred as lawyers.
Until we the citizens rein in these out of control judges this madness and power grabbing will continue! |
|
Why won't you address my question?
I'm not 100% against gay marriage, I just think
all the arguments in its favor are easily shown
to worthless. I don't think you have any logic
behind your position. |
|
... that the "thought reform" techniques so clearly forth in the great GLBT radical manifesto, "After the Ball", simply aren't working for the majority population. A majority of California voters have shown they are not vulnerable to the shaming and intimidation techniques in the gay activists' arsenal.
And Jeffrey, why do you persist in taking up more-than-your-share of space on a conservative discussion board that you don't even agree with in the first place? Or are you paid to listen in on other people's discussions, with Gill Foundation money?
Do you feel it's "unfair" that families in California are determined to protect their children and give their children a healthy childhood, free from sexual indoctrination at too early an age? Jeffrey, I am sorry for all the times that grownups failed to love, care for and protect YOU when you were little.
Complain all you want, but marriage is a foundational social unit consisting of a committed relationship between one man and one woman. This means just between the two-- no cruising, no "outside sex" allowed. Boring stuff, right? Yet this kind of total commitment is what forms the foundation of society. Whereas marriage as the gay community sees it is merely another way to "express my sexuality"... a way to get more and more rights, while not having to give up the excesses of the gay lifestyle... like a house built on sand. |
|
The whole Christian God thing...yes. The idea, since the country was FOUNDED on Christian principals is to follow what the framers intended. John Adams said that the Constitution was designed for a God fearing people...it wouldn't work for any other. He is right and we are seeing the fruits of Godlessness today. If one pursues 'liberty' and 'freedom' without the Christian basis the country was founded upon then you get people trying to redefine everything they can in order to satisfy their desires. Liberals HOPE for there to be no God so they can justify anything they want and desire to do and you see the choas before you in 2008.
If the court comes out and says you can marry a Hershey Bar it will still be wrong in the eyes of God. Period. It doesn't matter if being gay is chic in 2008...it will ALWAYS be wrong morally. Take it up with Him. Seriously Pray...ask for guidance. Ask Him! "Hey! Why can't gays marry?" I know may sound stupid to you, but try. See what happens.
Also, being gay and being black are cleary not the same thing. Color is not conduct. Just admit you want Constitution to not bow before God and you can do what you want, but until there is a some sort of revolution that strips God from everything...you have to follow the law and the definition of marrage that has been around since the beginning of time. Tell God he is a bigot.
I'm not saying bust out a Bible and preach the Word everyhwere, just people (all)...please show some self restraint in that we do not have to go around acting on every desire we feel. We are not animals that hump everything that moves. We are far more advanced than that...at least I hope.
And for you angry gays...God does love you to. Really! Try to from a relationship with Him. Chill out for a moment...I'm not patronizing you...just try and from a relationsip with God.
|
|
The whole Christian God thing...yes. The idea, since the country was FOUNDED on Christian principals is to follow what the framers intended. John Adams said that the Constitution was designed for a God fearing people...it wouldn't work for any other. He is right and we are seeing the fruits of Godlessness today. If one pursues 'liberty' and 'freedom' without the Christian basis the country was founded upon then you get people trying to redefine everything they can in order to satisfy their desires. Liberals HOPE for there to be no God so they can justify anything they want and desire to do and you see the choas before you in 2008.
If the court comes out and says you can marry a Hershey Bar it will still be wrong in the eyes of God. Period. It doesn't matter if being gay is chic in 2008...it will ALWAYS be wrong morally. Take it up with Him. Seriously Pray...ask for guidance. Ask Him! "Hey! Why can't gays marry?" I know may sound stupid to you, but try. See what happens.
Also, being gay and being black are cleary not the same thing. Color is not conduct. Just admit you want Constitution to not bow before God and you can do what you want, but until there is a some sort of revolution that strips God from everything...you have to follow the law and the definition of marrage that has been around since the beginning of time. Tell God he is a bigot.
I'm not saying bust out a Bible and preach the Word everyhwere, just people (all)...please show some self restraint in that we do not have to go around acting on every desire we feel. We are not animals that hump everything that moves. We are far more advanced than that...at least I hope.
And for you angry gays...God does love you to. Really! Try to from a relationship with Him. Chill out for a moment...I'm not patronizing you...just try and form a relationsip with God.
|
|
|
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your question. I don't really have strong feelings either way about polygamy. If society says "no" to it, it doesn't bother me because groups of people aren't protected in the way that race, religion and gender are. |
|
Why does traditional marriage need to be redefined??? Why should a small minority of people want to make a change that will affect the majority???
Civil unions have as much grace and tolerance as is needed without rocking the boat... but you want to rock the boat... Take for instance.. the boy scouts of America... Homosexuals want to be accepted within that organization which I think is absurd... Why don't the homos start their own Homosexual organization of scouting??? No, they don't want that because they want to be accepted in that one. Its the same issue with marriage... call it something else... but no you want it to be called marriage, why?
I don't want to see education explain that it’s ok to have two daddies... or two mommies... That is not normal. I don't want that to be socially acceptable...and California (the lib state) has agreed to that. Its not about civil rights like race or gender... it’s a sick sexual preference.... I don't accept sexual perversion as normal...
You have to realize that this is basically a Christian nation... founded on Christian principals... in which you want to change for your benefit... I don't want my children or grand children to think that this is socially acceptable because its not, period.
|
|
Why does traditional marriage need to be redefined??? Why should a small minority of people want to make a change that will affect the majority???
Civil unions have as much grace and tolerance as is needed without rocking the boat... but you want to rock the boat... Take for instance.. the boy scouts of America... Homosexuals want to be accepted within that organization which I think is absurd... Why don't the homos start their own Homosexual organization of scouting??? No, they don't want that because they want to be accepted in that one. Its the same issue with marriage... call it something else... but no you want it to be called marriage, why?
I don't want to see education explain that it’s ok to have two daddies... or two mommies... That is not normal. I don't want that to be socially acceptable...and California (the lib state) has agreed to that. Its not about civil rights like race or gender... it’s a sick sexual preference.... I don't accept sexual perversion as normal...
You have to realize that this is basically a Christian nation... founded on Christian principals... in which you want to change for your benefit... I don't want my children or grand children to think that this is socially acceptable because its not, period.
|
|
You live in a democracy and the democratic process has unfolded. You lose.
The state agonized for months over this issue. Millions of dollars were spent, speeches made, there were parades, and vigils, and teach-ins, and conferences, and demonstrations. You brought out all your big guns. Movie stars by the thousand used their power to aid your side.
Tens of millions of Californians listened with respect to the arguments, made up their minds, and voted.
You asked the citizens of this sovereign state to consider your arguments and point of view and the citizens did that and rejected your pleading. You have lost. It is over. Good bye, Jeffrey. |
|
This issue should never have been part of ANY Constitution.
"In California we have done the unthinkable. We put civil rights up for a popular vote. One absolute in our world is that the majority will always vote to subvert civil rights for the minority."
"What is especially scary in California is that the "YES on 8" advocates have been able to force public policy to conform to their religious dogma. We may be on our way to swapping our representative democracy for a theocracy.
What a backward step we have taken."
The religious will always find a way to rationalize their bigotry; use their religion as a weapon; impose their subjective values derived from a source by which the NATION is not bound or shackled into BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION which is FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
|
|
to take up more than my fair share of space. I didn't know there were space allocations here. I just enjoy responding to peoples' comments and correcting misinformation. And I'm not really upset. Saddened maybe but not upset.
I have no idea what it means that "marriage is a foundational unit" of society. Could you explain that? I think legal rights could be described as a foundational unit and I like the idea of extending legal rights as far as they can go. My feeling is people have the right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt somebody, or it's not illegal. And if it's illegal, the government better have a darn good reason for making it so! |
|
...are on this board because they are seeking the truth and are getting it with the great posts that have come thus far..
I hope they realize that we don't dislike them as people we just dislike the practice of homosexuality....and the sneaky agenda....
So I'm sure you are nice people but we don't want traditional marriage re-defined... |
|
"How would you feel if we passed a constitutional amendment outlawing Christianity? "
Find a 3/5 majority of the States to approve this and we'll find out. Sophmoric arguments aside, there is no "fundamental" right to marriage in either the California Constitution or the US Constitution. It's for the majority to decide and in this case the majority clearly believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman. |
|
” The Constitution is accountable to the will of the people”
Are you out of your mind?
Your brain has walked off the map.
The Constitution upholds freedom to protect the individual FROM THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and the “MOB MENTALITY” such as this vote.
You have lost your mind.
Your religion has placed you in a distortion of disease within your mind that you can no longer uphold freedom and choice of the individual.
And to what or whom will you turn for protection when your viewpoint is no longer in the majority? When your religion becomes threatened toward extinction because a “majority” decides to place it on the ballot and overrule your personal and individual freedom to behave or have choice as you see fit, where will you turn?
You will be running, screaming to our Nation’s Constitution if the loony libs start absconding with your freedoms of choice in your life.
Somehow you are not able to make the application of one understanding in life to the other aspects of your life.
You are stunningly stupid.
|
|
So I guess you would not disaprove the denial of
a fellow citizen's rights because they were deemed ugly. It seems the only grounds for
oppression you recognize are thoses based on
race, religion, and gender. What a surprise. |
|
Jeffery wrote: "My feeling is people have the right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt somebody, or it's not illegal."
I agree with your statement here 100%... I think your a more reasonable guy then most people who post here.... I hope you can understand our concerns about this issue too.. |
|
Apparently you think that your "might means right" trumps everything.
You don't think that christianity can become extinct to the extent you have little or no voice?
You better start researching Europe and how muslims have slowly been taking over there for the past 30 years. If Europe doesn't protect individuals from the mob mentality, at some point muslims will demand equal time for sharia law to impose it's "values and morals" on everyone.
Arrogance is not a position of power. You're incredibly stupid if you think it is.
Bet you didn't think 2 years ago BO was going to be voted in, especially with all his rhetoric, allies of transgression, along with his unbelievable far left ideology - and yet there he is.
Never underestimate the power of the mob mentality to vote in stupidity.
Make the mistake yourself? Fine, be prepared when it turns on you and your values or morals are no longer protected and some "group" decides to propose it being outlawed.
|
|
Tom wrote: "How would you feel if we passed a constitutional amendment outlawing Christianity? "
Tom, this may in fact happen one day... I wouldn't put it past the left wing liberals to make this happen. This is foretold in scripture that laws would change NOT benefiting Christians... It's called the "spirit of anti-christ" that is in our nation today.... If it did happen then the end is near...lol It happen in Rome with Nero and it would probably happen here too... Christian persecution is apart of being a Christian.. nothing new in all of that....
|
|
|
respond to shameless bigotry and selfishness. To say you're affected if same sex couples can marry is like the KKK member saying he's affected by mixed race marriage. It doesn't affect you it all; it offends you. And it's not good enough that same sex marriage causes you discomfort. Americans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We also have generally agreed that we don't want to discriminate based on race, religion or gender. Prop 8 appears to have passed because its supporters resorted to scare tactics like suggesting falsely that school children would receive instruction on homosexuality. They also relied on personal religious beliefs and were willing to impose them on others. Because of this, and the thin majority supporting it, it will likely be undone in due time. |
|
but I do feel for you. I know you are very passionate about approval of same-sex marriages and I respect that. I also know the gays and lesbians have been the "good soldiers", standing with other minorities against discrimination.
It's almost certain that you voted overwhelmingly for Obama also.....
That said......the stats are in.......
Those Hispanics and Blacks you have stood shoulder to shoulder with in the past, just stabbed you in the back....
50% of Hispanics voted against you and for Prop.8....
even worse.....70% of Blacks voted against you and for Prop.8....
maybe you should pick your "allies" more carefully next time.......
Ask your Black and Hispanic friends how they voted?????
I'm sure they'll all say they sided with you, but the stats say otherwise.....
is the Obama coalition unraveling already????
|
|
Let's outlaw ugly and since I've worked in the modeling agency and earned money, I'm a professional and can make the subjective decision as to who is and isn't ugly.
All people must submit their photos for my approval.
Those I disapprove of will be leaving shortly on a plane to an undisclosed location where beautiful people don't have to be exposed to your ugly.
A majority of people in the United States voted and you are hereby on notice to send your photos immediately to my email address for approval:
Idiocy@stupidvote.com |
|
|
would object if an ugly couple were legally denied the right to marry. But appearance is not currently a protected status in California's constitution, like race, religion and gender. So I would at least initially have to accept it, if a proposition passed that said, "Ugly people can't marry". When California says it is now going to use gender to determine who can get married, when its constitution says it won't use race, religion or gender discrimination, I object strenuously. Repeal the prohibition against gender first, then go forward with prohibiting same sex (i.e. gender) marriage. |
|
"It's for the majority to decide and in this case the majority clearly believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman."
What else should we have EVERYONE VOTE ON?
Should Jews exist?
Should Blacks go back to slavery?
Should women not get a chance to vote anymore?
Should we outlaw bikinis?
Should we throw all muslims out of the United States?
Should we have the people define what is a "value" and what is a "moral"?
Should we decide how much money each person gets to earn and then take anything over that amount away from them?
I mean if the criteria is merely getting people to vote and decide and "majority rules" then let's start.
|
|
So much for equal protection of the law.
|
|
"Americans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We also have generally agreed that we don't want to discriminate based on race, religion or gender"
I agree with this statement... but why do you want marriage re-defined????? Answer the question.Civil unions offer the same benefits as a married couple... \
It is not up to rogue judges to legislate from the bench... THey don't make law, they should interpret it... The law now states that marriage is between a man and a women.. and civil unions can be whatever you want...
Can you tell me why kindergartners in CA were asked to sign a no hate homosexual pledge?? And you say this isn't affecting young children?/??
Answer the questions... |
|
Why dont you make your list of suggestions a proposition for voting in the next election... its a free country... see if the people will vote with you...
As far as homosexual marriage banned in CA... It's official.... the people have spoken... |
|
It will be a great day in this nation when religious nut cases like yourself are no longer in existence and religion has been relegated to the dung heap of stupidity.
It's not enough for someone like yourself to have your religious freedom; you want to impose it on everyone else as if they ought to live the way you live. Define all of life as you define it and as you deem it so.
Your mind has walked off the map.
And you're right, it might be fun to see about placing on the ballot here in Arizona an amendment to the Constitution outlawing religion of any kind. We could set a precedent that all other states can then do the same.
A case can easily be made about all the suffering, wars, killing, bigotry and discrimination that it has propagated. That it's time to end this suffering.
After all, free choice to make such decisions is what you apparently uphold and if the “majority” agrees then your religious values, morals and ability to worship will be forfeit.
If nothing, it will bring to the light of reality the manner in which religious people like yourself want to silence those who do not agree with your subjective ideology. |
|
Back in the 60s, when the civil rights movement was gaining traction, the terms "de jure" and "de facto" (roughly, in my understanding, "according to the law" and "according to what is really happening") were used frequently, and "de facto" discrimination was frequently used as justification for court settlements, legislation, etc.
The California constitution may not have declared marriage to be between a man and a woman "de jure", but the wedding vows that contain terms "husband and wife", terms in which the definition states male and female, respectively, are a "de facto" statement that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If that requirement was good enough 40 years ago, it should be good enough today, and the California Supreme Court should have originally ruled that the law was indeed constitutional.
And trying to claim that the constitution that was written 150 years ago (when attitudes to homosexuals were a lot different than they are today) GUARANTEES the right of men to marry men and women to marry women, just does not stand up to any kind of sensible analysis. If 2 men or 2 women went to the hall of records back then to demand to be married, they would have been ridden out of town on a rail (and it wouldn't have been horizontal, if you get my drift).
Marriage has no requirement for the participants to be heterosexual. A gay man can marry any woman who will have him, except his mother, sister, daughter; a gay woman can marry any man who will have her, except her father, brother, or son. The same restrictions as normal people must live within.
What gays want to do is change the rules of society, and it seems to me that this is strictly up to the will of the people. And on Tuesday, the people spoke, and said "NO". |
|
In response to your questions:
Yes
No
No
No, but they should be regulated. Only hot babes can wear them, anyone more than 10 pounds overweight caught wearing a bikini would be sentenced to hard labor (and maybe work off those extra pounds)
Not really a bad idea from a practical, national-security point of view, but it is already constitutionally outlawed (freedom of religion, you know).
Better to have the people do it than the politicians or the judges.
No, unless you are an 0bama supporter.
And majority does rule, as long as it is within the bounds of the constitution. And the people have the right to define the constitution. And once something is in the constitution, ONLY the people can rescind it, NOT the judiciary.
There are 49 other states within this country, each of which can define its own constitution (within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution, of course). There are about 190 other countries on this globe, each of which defines the laws in its own fashion (and in the vast majority of those, the will of the people has no meaning). Maybe one of them would be more satisfactory to you.
----------------
I just read your latest lamebrained proposition of outlawing religion in the Arizona constitution. Sorry, but the U.S. Constitution already guarantees religious freedom, so it would trump your Arizona constitution.
Guess you don't understand how things work at all, do you?
|
|
(This comment is in two parts)
After reading (or skimming) through the first 90 or so comments, it seems that most of the comments are nothing more than a lot of soundbyte-long invectives, but no comprehensive comment. Therefore, let me add my two cents.
1) First of all, what is marriage? I must concede a point made by Jeffrey on November, 06, 2008 at 1:13 PM: Marriage has had many definitions. That I will concede--and that, in fact, helps MY point. Who has defined marriage? It has always been by a law of some sort, be it God's over biblical Israel, or the various State governments over their respective jurisdictions. Which leads to my point: the highest law in a State is its State Constitution. In CA, the people had the right to amend their constitution. Therefore, they were well within their rights to define marriage as one man for one woman. It is not "hate" nor "homophobia"; it is the People exercising their rights.
When gay activists seek to gain the ability to have gay couples joined in marriage, they ARE trying to redefine marriage, just as much as attempts at overturning anti-miscegenation statutes were attempts to redefine marriage.
So stop trying to color the debate in terms of rights; it IS one of definitions. |
|
2) Secondly, to those who try to equate the gay activists' attempts with the Civil Rights movement, I, as a black man, must cry FOUL! Unlike ethnicity, sexual orientation is NOT something that is inborn; despite attempts to have the contrary view taught, there is NO scientific proof to back it up.
If I am wrong, please show me the proof.
The Civil Rights Movement was a movement to allow blacks to enjoy the same rights as whites in this nation. However, gays cannot say that their rights have been trampled upon becuase of their homosexuality:
- A straight man cannot give his inheritance to an unrelated person, just like a gay man cannot.
- A straight man's friend cannot visit him at the hospital at any time he so wishes, just like that of a gay man.
- A gay man can marry a woman, just like a straight man can. A gay woman can marry a man, just like a straight woman can.
Both gays and heterosexuals can
- vote
- speak freely, with some restrictions
- believe in whatsoever religion they please without the intrusion of governmment
etc.
SO--what rights do straight people have that gays do not? And which of those inequalities require a redefinition of marriage in order to be rectified?
Unless you can prove otherwise, it seems to me that this whole "gay marriage" debate IS merely an attempt to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle upon the majority of Americans.
To close this whole "gay is the new Black" argument, let me mess with a quote from Frederick Douglass:
When gays, because they are gays, are hunted down through the streets of New York and New Orleans, when they are dragged from their houses and hung upon lamp-posts; when their children are torn from their arms, and their brains dashed upon the pavement, then they will have an urgency equal to our own.
|
|