CALIFORNIA BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Good bye Democracy and Representative Republic. Hello to a nation ruled by an individual wearing a black robe!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

Ignorant bigoted assholes voted in favor of keeping the laws against inter-racial marriage in effect in California in the sixties. Fortunately, "an individual wearing a black robe" found that to be unconstitutional, even though the proposition passed by a fair margin.

Ignorant bigoted assholes in many southern states voted to keep laws that sustained the "seperate but equal" treatment of non-whites. Fortunately, "an individual wearing a black robe" found that to be unconstitutional, even though the laws were very popular among the voters and passed by a wide margin.

Ignorant bigoted assholes fought long and hard to prevent women from having the right to vote. It took until 1920 for women to get the right to vote.

Ignorant bigoted assholes fought long and hard to prevent unmarried adult women from owning property in their own names. It wasn't until the mid-sixties that these laws were overturned by "an individual wearing a black robe". The laws were very popular among the voters.

In each of the cases cited above, all sorts of bullshit justifications were used to deny basic civil rights to a group. The most offensive justifications by far is the biblical crap spewed by the religious zealots.

Denying basic civil rights on the basis of a vote is 100% wrong. You folks would know better, if you really understood what this country is supposed to stand for.

[Andy9o8 0]

Hey, here's a thought:

Theory: If open homosexual relationships (with or without the formality of marriage) - specifically as an alternative to heterosexual formalized marriage - are widely accepted in a society, and remain widely accepted over several generations, then eventually the percentage (relative to the entire population) of people who are born homosexual will decrease.

Reasoning: If homosexuality is pre-destined in utero (as I believe it is), then there's a fair chance that it is a genetic trait (albeit possibly a recessive trait). The trait, of course, can only be passed on via procreation. Not all people who carry the trait are homosexual, but all homosexuals carry the trait. Not all homosexuals who procreate pass on the trait, but the trait is more likely to be passed on by a homosexual who procreates than by a heterosexual who procreates.

If homosexuals are pressured by society to enter into heterosexual marriages and procreate within those marriages, they are more likely to procreate than if they never marry. Thus, the trait tends to be maintained, and the birth rate of homosexuals is thereby maintained.

Conversely, eventually, the more homosexuals feel free to live a homosexual lifestyle without social penalty or counter-pressure, the fewer homosexuals will enter into heterosexual marriages; thus the fewer homosexuals will procreate to pass on the trait; thus eventually the proportion (i.e., birth rate) of homosexuals will decrease.

So this is why gay people should oppose gay rights: because eventually it will render them nearly extinct. And then getting a date will be a real bitch.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

A few things should be noted;

1) Walker was appointed by Bush 41. I had actually expected the decision to go the other way based just on this fact alone.

Walker is also a gay man. I personally don't care, but it is a relevant point.

I personally wish the government would get out of the business of regulation personal relationships.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

there's a fair chance that it is a genetic trait (albeit possibly a recessive trait).

Your argument only works if the trait is based on a recessive gene. It could be a dominant gene that is affected by another dominant gene. Those gene thingy's are pretty complicated.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[billvon 2,396]

>thus eventually the proportion (i.e., birth rate) of homosexuals will decrease.

Hmm. Didn't work for sickle cell anemia, which is a genetic disease. (And the reason why that didn't happen is instructive.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Gay couples are increasingly having children, not just adopting them.

But if the genetic factors for being gay having been eliminated yet after thousands of years, it doesn't seem likely to disappear that way.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Walker is also a gay man. I personally don't care, but it is a relevant point.

I agree that it's one of several relevant factors. Broadly speaking, forum-shopping (when possible), or even just the result of random assignment of forum, can be a critically important factor in litigation.

Quote

I personally wish the government would get out of the business of regulation personal relationships.

That's nice to wish for in the abstract, but in practicality, and this context, it's unworkable (or perhaps much more difficult to make workable). There are all sorts of legal rights and benefits (as well as duties) that accrue to married people that do not exist for unmarried people; so the government's involvement is really more about those rights and obligations than it is about regulating a personal relationship.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

Good bye Democracy and Representative Republic. Hello to a nation ruled by an individual wearing a black robe!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

Ignorant bigoted assholes voted in favor of keeping the laws against inter-racial marriage in effect in California in the sixties. Fortunately, "an individual wearing a black robe" found that to be unconstitutional, even though the proposition passed by a fair margin.

Ignorant bigoted assholes in many southern states voted to keep laws that sustained the "seperate but equal" treatment of non-whites. Fortunately, "an individual wearing a black robe" found that to be unconstitutional, even though the laws were very popular among the voters and passed by a wide margin.

Ignorant bigoted assholes fought long and hard to prevent women from having the right to vote. It took until 1920 for women to get the right to vote.

Ignorant bigoted assholes fought long and hard to prevent unmarried adult women from owning property in their own names. It wasn't until the mid-sixties that these laws were overturned by "an individual wearing a black robe". The laws were very popular among the voters.

In each of the cases cited above, all sorts of bullshit justifications were used to deny basic civil rights to a group. The most offensive justifications by far is the biblical crap spewed by the religious zealots.

Denying basic civil rights on the basis of a vote is 100% wrong. You folks would know better, if you really understood what this country is supposed to stand for.

Well said!! All the people fighting against equal rights for gays do not realize they are going to take a place in history with all the other bigots mentioned above and be looked upon with the same disdain when future generations reflect back on this time.

This case will make it to the SCOTUS and hopefully, as all the posters above have highlighted, our system of checks and balances will be upheld and the rights of the minority will not be trampled by the majority. It's what these people in black robes are there to make sure doesn't happen.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

That's nice to wish for in the abstract, but in practicality, and this context, it's unworkable (or perhaps much more difficult to make workable). There are all sorts of legal rights and benefits (as well as duties) that accrue to married people that do not exist for unmarried people; so the government's involvement is really more about those rights and obligations than it is about regulating a personal relationship.

I'm a libertarian, so I am for the elimination of all these legal rights and benefits that the government grants to married people. Civil marriage is nothing other than a property contract--let people make their own private contracts.

I do realize those are not going away any time soon and would prefer to have gay couples treated equally under the law with straight couples (although again, I'd also like to be treated equally with both of them as a single man).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Casurf1978 0]

I'm still surprised that in this country most Americans cannot grasp the concept of majority rule with minority rights.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

I'm still surprised that in this country most Americans cannot grasp the concept of majority rule with minority rights.

Do you not understand the legal concept that civil rights are not subject to a popular vote?

The rights exist and and cannot be taken away by a majority vote. That is what the ruling says, in no uncertain terms.

If a majority could remove rights, segregation would still be legal in many states.

That is the difference between a country that is governed by a well thought out Constitution and a legal system that enforces the Constitution, sometimes to the consternation of some citizens, and a true democracy. In a true democracy, majority rules, always. That isn't the case in the USA. When something is unconstitutional, the majority does NOT get their way.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about "majority rules" in the Senate? As of right now, the Rescums have abused the filibuster to prevent majority rules in the Senate. They are forcing almost everything to require sixty votes, not 51, by abusing the rules as currently written. Totally wong, both ethically and morally, but that doesn't matter to the Rescums and their supporters.
The same assholes don't like the Constitution anymore and want to rescind an amendment or two. Where are the howls of outrage from the right wing patriots who LOVE the Constitution and the amendments so much? The silence is deafening...

[billvon 2,396]

>Do you not understand the legal concept that civil rights are not subject
>to a popular vote?

That's what "majority rule with minority rights" means. He's agreeing with you.

[freakyrat 1]

That's funny.

[rushmc 18]

The problem with your point is gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. it is a political ideology. Therefore the vote should stand and the courts should butt out.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,120]

Why is it a political ideology and not a civil rights issue?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Why is it a political ideology and not a civil rights issue?

Wendy P.

Why is Civil Rights not a political ideology? Seems to me that it is.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wmw999 2,120]

Good point. It seemed he was trying to say that civil rights is OK, but political ideology isn't, and I was trying to understand how.

I have ideas, but I'd rather not make assumptions.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am for the elimination of all these legal rights and benefits that the government grants to married people. Civil marriage is nothing other than a property contract--let people make their own private contracts

That's the most clear comment and direction on the whole board.

However, since the whole issue is about perceived 'special' rights that couples get over singles, your true goal will fall on deaf ears.

OMG - treat everybody equally as individuals and leave partnering as something that's none of the government's business. what a crazy thought!!

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Civil marriage is nothing other than a property contract--

Marriage is two things -

1 - that ceremony/act where two people commit to each other for life - There is absolutely no reason why gov should have ANYTHING to do with that.

2 - It's that property/responsibility contract of default rights and benefits that gov enforces.

the big joke - is that all the arguments pull from #1 while the only true impact is #2. That's why it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the issue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Yep. People voted against interracial marriage for years until the Supreme Court overturned it. I think we're all glad they did.

Not too sure about "all." I'm guessing that there are still people out there who think that interracial marriage should be illegal.

You have to look at it from Bill's point of view . . . in his world, if he is glad then all of the people that matter in his world are glad.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Marriage is two things -

1 - that ceremony/act where two people commit to each other for life - There is absolutely no reason why gov should have ANYTHING to do with that.

2 - It's that property/responsibility contract of default rights and benefits that gov enforces.

the big joke - is that all the arguments pull from #1 while the only true impact is #2. That's why it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the issue.

I think most of the arguments that I have heard pull from #2. What makes you say that they all pull from #1?

The government has made "marriage" a legal term that carries certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits. All of the arguments I have heard seem to relate to same-sex couples wanting the same access to this legal marriage that opposite-sex couples have. I haven't heard anyone arguing about whether they should be able to commit to each other for life or not.

[airdvr 197]

I have no problem with gay marriage. I think they should be miserable just like the straight married people.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,396]

>the big joke - is that all the arguments pull from #1 while the only true
>impact is #2. That's why it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation
>about the issue.

I don't think all the arguments pull from #1. If they did, such arguments would have to include divorce being illegal.

I'm all for getting the government out of marriage. But whether or not that comes to pass, the law should be uniform for everyone.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think most of the arguments that I have heard pull from #2. What makes you say that they all pull from #1?

Pro
"how does it hurt you"
"if two people love each other, why do we care"
etc

Con
"it's not natural"
"it's all about making babies"
etc


those are emotionally charged arguments that have nothing to do with #2

I see those types of thing posted more than any discussion about inheritance, property, immigration, taxes, etc etc etc.

I'd much rather that government have a relationship with individuals only. leave coupling out it so that people can choose for themselves.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I think most of the arguments that I have heard pull from #2. What makes you say that they all pull from #1?

Pro
"how does it hurt you"
"if two people love each other, why do we care"
etc

Con
"it's not natural"
"it's all about making babies"
etc


those are emotionally charged arguments that have nothing to do with #2

I see those types of thing posted more than any discussion about inheritance, property, immigration, taxes, etc etc etc.

I'd much rather that government have a relationship with individuals only. leave coupling out it so that people can choose for themselves.

OK - then lets add one . . .

If Adam and Steve were married, then were going to get a divorce . . . who would be given spousal support? Traditionalkly it is the man that is made to provide the support.

Secondly, who would get the fishnets and pumps, and who would get the wigs?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun