Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter mommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Can someone tell me what “rights” regarding marriage gays do not share with heteros?
Click to expand...
The right to marry a single consenting adult of their choosing who also wants to marry them.
 
Kevin Walker:
2.) Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”
Click to expand...
I for one am glad we are disobeying this particular command of God and hope we continue in our disobedience. Do you really want to live in a society that executes male homosexuals?
 
40.png
mommy:
It seems to be common in California for the judges to overrule what the voters want. It’s pretty sad.
Click to expand...
The amendment to their constitution might be on the ballot in the fall. If it gets approved, it doesn’t matter what the judges say. Even if they have already ruled on the issue.
 
40.png
Drew98:
The right to marry a single consenting adult of their choosing who also wants to marry them.
Click to expand...
People confuse rights with obligations. It is an obligation, your vocation that is, to for a man and woman to marry in order to have a family.

This country is based on our “God given rights”.

Apparently God is against same-sex unions based on the scripture you quoted.
 
40.png
Drew98:
I for one am glad we are disobeying this particular command of God and hope we continue in our disobedience. Do you really want to live in a society that executes male homosexuals?
Click to expand...
There are alot of laws from the old testament we do not obey anymore. If you remember, Jesus kind of overturned alot of them.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
There are alot of laws from the old testament we do not obey anymore. If you remember, Jesus kind of overturned alot of them.
Click to expand...
So the question is why people constantly quote them?
There for sure is an agenda behind it…

Werner
 
Lisa N:
Unfortunately, this judge just overruled the people who VOTED against same sex marriage. Isn’t it funny how when the people speak to want euthanasia they should be listened too but if they speak and say they don’t want same sex marriage they are overruled?

BTW I am not panicked but I am very very angry. We’ve got the tail wagging the dog in this country.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
I wise man once said “pure democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner”. Who was it? i cannot remember, but you should know it as it was one of your founding fathers.

That is why there is a constitution and why there are judges to interpret the constitution, to protect the said sheep.

So what the people of California voted for (or against) is meaningless when it violates the constitution, and judges will decide if a gay marriage ban violates it or not.

You getting angry when judges do their very job only shows you didn’t understand what a contitutional republic is about.

But being a member of a minority yourself you shouldn’t cry out too loud to have “the people”'s will being law in every case, because the day that happens you won’t have much to be happy about as a Catholic in the protestant US.

Werner
 
Kevin Walker:
2.) Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”
Click to expand...
I for one am glad we are disobeying this particular command of God and hope we continue in our disobedience. Do you really want to live in a society that executes male homosexuals?
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
There are alot of laws from the old testament we do not obey anymore. If you remember, Jesus kind of overturned alot of them.
Click to expand...
Actually l don’t remember where Jesus said we should stop executing male homosexuals. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.

In fact, Matthew 5:17-18 suggests the opposite:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”
 
40.png
Drew98:
The right to marry a single consenting adult of their choosing who also wants to marry them.
Click to expand...
Gays and straights share that same right. Gaus also have the same stipulations to go along with it that I have: It has to be someone of their choosing who is of the opposite sex.
 
Drew,

Men (no matter their so-called orientation) have legal access to marrying a woman who would like to marry them. All women share the same legal access. There is no discrimination there…every man has legal access to marry a woman…every woman has legal access to marry a man…that is a fact for everyone (so called sexual orientation has nothing to do with it).

Legal marriage in the United States does NOT discriminate. It is an obvious point that people just fly over without giving it a thought.
 
Drew,

Jesus challenged the Jews to throw the first stone at the adulteresss if they were free of sin. They walked away knowing they were also guilty of sin.
 
I think it is discrimination that one can’t “marry” a stapler. What an oppressive culture we have. So many ignorant, irrational people. Some really “love” their desk items.
 
40.png
fix:
I think it is discrimination that one can’t “marry” a stapler. What an oppressive culture we have. So many ignorant, irrational people. Some really “love” their desk items.
Click to expand...
Ghastly isn’t it? And all this time I’ve wanted to marry my l8 month old nephew. Cute little tyke and I’ve always had a thing for blondes. What’s the country coming to discriminating against me for wanting to marry a younger man?

Lisa
 
Tyler Smedley:
I hate judicial activism…thats what this is…judges saying what they think rather then what the constituation says.
Click to expand...
I doubt that it just comes down to what “they think.” Judges are interpreters - conservative judges interpret constitutions one way, liberals another. Our reactions depend on whose ox is gored.

I disagree with that judge’s ruling, but I also have no doubt that he made it on the basis of study of the issue.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Drew,

Men (no matter their so-called orientation) have legal access to marrying a woman who would like to marry them. All women share the same legal access. There is no discrimination there…every man has legal access to marry a woman…every woman has legal access to marry a man…that is a fact for everyone (so called sexual orientation has nothing to do with it).

Legal marriage in the United States does NOT discriminate. It is an obvious point that people just fly over without giving it a thought.
Click to expand...
We have a lot of laws that put some kind of ‘restriction’ on a legal act:
I can’t drive til I’m 16. And I can’t be blind.
I can’t drink until I’m 21.
I can’t vote until I’m 18.
I can’t run for President until I’m 35.
I’m 2 inches too short to be a Rockette Dancer in NYC.
My eyesight is too bad to be a pilot.

And for Marriage:
I can’t marry my brother or my sister
I can’t marry my first cousin, my son, my daughter, my dad, or my mom.
I can’t marry more than one person.
I can’t marry my neighbor’s 15 year old son.
I can’t marry someone of my same sex.

but either can ANYONE ELSE.
 
Well here’s an interesting article:

Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee

**SAN FRANCISCO - **Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer - a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

“We’re certainly feeling the judge’s decision is right,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city’s lawsuit prompted Kramer’s ruling Monday that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Rest of Story
%between%
 
40.png
Brad:
Another anti-Christian secular judge imposing his views over the majority. You would figure high-ranking judges would have learned the most basic principles of law - one of them being that judges interpret. Nowhere in the constitution does is say that marriage should be changed. Lord have mercy.
Click to expand...
He may be anti-Christian and secular but he was apointed by a Catholic Republican.

Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee
 
“Gay” marriage is a misnomer. Any homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will have him. Vice versa, any homosexual woman is free to marry any available man of her choosing. Homosexuals are not barred from marriage. What they are trying to do is redefine what marriage is. They are trying to set up a system to include marriage as any binding relationship between two consenting adults. Then, they will attack what the definition of consenting is. Then, they will attack the definition of adult. Then they will attack the boundaries of two only and include any number of possibilities. Then, they will attack “speciism”, and say that marriage between any number of living things is acceptable. The definition of marriage is a standard. When you deviate from that standard you degrade to moral decay and eventually anarchy. It sets up the premise “It’s my right because I want it.” I want to paint my house bright pink, but the HOA says that pink is not within the standards for my community. So, I can’t do it. This arguement about “same gender marriage” is symptomatic of moral relativism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top