Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[irishpatrick]

Equality in result won today.

Liberty lost today.

Liberty has lost many battles and if we lose enough battles to equality, we will wake-up and realize we are no longer a free people.

Cherish liberty. Without it life would be drastically different and our ability to freely worship God would be erased.

Good night to all.

 

[Suudy]

I know right? There are stalls for privacy, after all!

on a serious note, the example was rather ridiculous.

So you are saying that laws prohibiting men from entering women’s restrooms violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution? Would you like to seem them overturned?

The point of the example was to demonstrate that men and women are treated differently under the law. Now, if you think that is unconstitutional, I hope you are involved in your community protesting those laws as well.

 

[bosonhiggs]

But surrogate relationships are not enforceable. I cannot force a woman to give me a child she has borne if she decided to keep it even after paying for all prenatal care, birth, and other costs. Note also that it would be illicit to do so (surrogate).

Of course I have the “right”. I also have the “right” to murder my neighbor, though his family “may not take kindy to it.” The point is that the government prohibits men from entering women’s restrooms. Why shouldn’t the governmetn prohibit men and men or women and women from getting married?

Again, I have the same “right” to refuse to enter the draft as I have the same “right” to drive on the left side of the road. Both are prohibited by law. Why should gay “marriage” be any different?

Great. But the point is that men and women are already treated differently under the law. Unless you completely erase the differentiation between men and women, you cannot claim that there is no difference between genders.

Ok, point taken. I will reword my statement to “There should be, under law, no difference between how a woman and a man are treated, employed, viewed, etc” Men and women are equal, and should be treated as such.

 

[Rence]

It will happen and churches will eventually be forced by law to marry gays. That, of course, will force the RCC underground, going back to the days of the catacombs.

Watch and see.

I don’t think that will happen Patrick. There is a distinct difference between Church marriage and civil unions. These civil marriages have nothing to do with religion…

 

[exoflare]

Brooklyn:
Why is it when liberals can’t answer a question, they just try to change the subject.

Dale_M (i.e. “Exhibit A”):
I think that is often true for many people, regardless of their political orientation.

 

[Good_News_1]

Accusatory? How so?

It seemed to assume that anyone who disagreed with your conclusion lacked empathy, and the capacity for rationale thought. Perhaps I misread you.

Good thing I’m involved in my community, doing things like, ya know, protesting Prop 8.

Sort of a waste of time, don’t you think, since it’s a matter for the courts? Having been to a number of protests, even for causes I support, I find they don’t have much to do with empathy or logical thought - just a lot of screeching, divisive rhetoric and people with simple minded signs. YMMV.

 

[verum_peto_1]

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act sometimes referred to as DOMA, has also been found unconstitutional at the state appellate level, because it is the state’s right to determine the legal rights of marriage, and DOMA denies equal rights to same sex couples in states in which they are legally married.

The answer, as the California Supreme Court pointed out during the oral arguments leading to an earlier ruling upholding prop 8 pointed out, is to recognize the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage.

The Church has the right to marry only those whom it chooses to.

Advances in science and psychology show that that denying same sex legal marriage is an equal protection issue.

Just as the Church opposed interracial marriage and the abolition of slavery on scriptural grounds, it does so now with same gender marriage. Time will show that the Church is causing suffering with its anachronistic views. Going further back in history, we know that the Church opposed theories of Evolution and Natural Selection, and also tried people for heresy when they proposed a heliocentric planetary motion. This is just another in the long tradition of being out of sync with reality.

Regardless of how strongly some may hold their opinions, it seems pretty clear that it is simply a matter of time. Surveys show that 80% of people over 60 oppose gay marriage, while 80% of people under 30 support gay marriage. You would have seen similar poll results on interracial marriage in the 1950’s or 1960’s. I recall conversations with my grandmother who was born in 1894. On the topic of interracial marriage, the stopping point in the discussion was always, “It just isn’t natural. Anyone with any sense can see that. It is not what God intended.” No doubt, there have been popes who shared her view.

 

[Rence]

I think you are wrong. I can see tax exempt getting pulls at churches for “hate speech”. I can see schools getting very ugly. I can see folks freedom of speech being limited. There will be more…

I know this is not going to be a popular reply, but I really believe the Church shouldn’t have tax exempt status because it attempts to pass laws in this country by directing how it’s members can and can’t vote. Once you have a handle in how voting in a country goes, you should not have tax exempt status.

 

[exoflare]

This is a false dichotomy, and an insult to the ideals of both liberty and equality.

By “equality” you know he means “equality of outcomes”, right?

 

[irishpatrick]

Equality before the law has a rational basis in God’s equal love for each of us, and simple respect.

This is a false dichotomy, and an insult to the ideals of both liberty and equality.

I have to go, but I ask you to think it through with more depth. On the surface one would think that equality of result and liberty could go hand-in-hand, yet that is not how it works.

Equality of result says gays should be allowed to marry.

Yet, if gays get a federal law giving them marriage, than soon after that all churches will have to marry gays, thus taking away the lberty of Christians to worship in a place that holds to the real faith and takes away the liberty of the churches to practice their faith as they please.

Equality means every must be treated exactly the same…think of that in real depth and then think about the fallen nature of humanity–give a day or two’s thought, do not knee-jerk a response out here–please. Give yourself some real “what ifs,” and create the most likely outcome of “x” happened.

Good night.

 

[exoflare]

Sort of a waste of time, don’t you think, since it’s a matter for the courts? Having been to a number of protests, even for causes I support, I find they don’t have much to do with empathy or logical thought - just a lot of screeching, divisive rhetoric and people with simple minded signs. YMMV.

I’ve always thought that protests in general were just pointless wastes of time too, but I guess that’s a topic for another thread…

 

[irishpatrick]

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act sometimes referred to as DOMA, has also been found unconstitutional at the state appellate level, because it is the state’s right to determine the legal rights of marriage, and DOMA denies equal rights to same sex couples in states in which they are legally married.

The answer, as the California Supreme Court pointed out during the oral arguments leading to an earlier ruling upholding prop 8 pointed out, is to recognize the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage.

The Church has the right to marry only those whom it chooses to.

Advances in science and psychology show that that denying same sex legal marriage is an equal protection issue.

Just as the Church opposed interracial marriage and the abolition of slavery on scriptural grounds, it does so now with same gender marriage. Time will show that the Church is causing suffering with its anachronistic views. Going further back in history, we know that the Church opposed theories of Evolution and Natural Selection, and also tried people for heresy when they proposed a heliocentric planetary motion. This is just another in the long tradition of being out of sync with reality.

Regardless of how strongly some may hold their opinions, it seems pretty clear that it is simply a matter of time. Surveys show that 80% of people over 60 oppose gay marriage, while 80% of people under 30 support gay marriage. You would have seen similar poll results on interracial marriage in the 1950’s or 1960’s. I recall conversations with my grandmother who was born in 1894. On the topic of interracial marriage, the stopping point in the discussion was always, “It just isn’t natural. Anyone with any sense can see that. It is not what God intended.” No doubt, there have been popes who shared her view.

Very well said–freedom of religion will be erased because courts will not recognize a difference.

 

[bosonhiggs]

It seemed to assume that anyone who disagreed with your conclusion lacked empathy, and the capacity for rationale thought. Perhaps I misread you.

Sort of a waste of time, don’t you think, since it’s a matter for the courts? Having been to a number of protests, even for causes I support, I find they don’t have much to do with empathy or logical thought - just a lot of screeching, divisive rhetoric and people with simple minded signs. YMMV.

No, I am fine with people having views different than mine. Disagreement is natural and if everyone believed the same thing there would never be changes in society. On this topic, however, I will just have to agree to disagree with most of the posters.

I suppose that depends on what type of protest you attend. Protests can get attention, putting pressure on the courts to make a decision or make more people aware of the issues within out country. They can do a lot of help, I believe. One would be hard pressed to say the Million Man March was a waste of time.

 

[Corki]

Right here: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

in the 14th amendment.

There are not differences between genders. Are you suggesting that I, a woman, am not equal to a man? Should I not be allowed to vote or own land, as well?

Well, the 14th ammendment did NOT give you the right to vote, did it? It took the 19th ammendment to further expand the right to vote to include women. Why is it logical to expect that the 14th ammendment gives additional rights never intended by the founding fathers absent additional legislation (ie constitutional ammendment)?

States abridge the privileges of its citizens all the time. Look at the laws regulating drinking ages and phased driving privaleges. The regulation of marriage has always fallen to the states. The federal government does not (now) have any authority to usurp that.

 

[missmorgan389]

No, I am fine with people having views different than mine. Disagreement is natural and if everyone believed the same thing there would never be changes in society. On this topic, however, I will just have to agree to disagree with most of the posters.

I suppose that depends on what type of protest you attend. Protests can get attention, putting pressure on the courts to make a decision or make more people aware of the issues within out country. They can do a lot of help, I believe. One would be hard pressed to say the Million Man March was a waste of time.

Your post just reminded me of a Mother Teresa quote, “I was once asked why I don’t participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I’ll be there.”

 

[bosonhiggs]

I have to go, but I ask you to think it through with more depth. On the surface one would think that equality of result and liberty could go hand-in-hand, yet that is not how it works.

Equality of result says gays should be allowed to marry.

Yet, if gays get a federal law giving them marriage, than soon after that all churches will have to marry gays, thus taking away the lberty of Christians to worship in a place that holds to the real faith and takes away the liberty of the churches to practice their faith as they please.

Equality means every must be treated exactly the same…think of that in real depth and then think about the fallen nature of humanity–give a day or two’s thought, do not knee-jerk a response out here–please. Give yourself some real “what ifs,” and create the most likely outcome of “x” happened.

Good night.

The Churches won’t have to marry them, the ones that don’t wish to at any rate. It’s about the government acknowledging the marriage. You can be legally wed without a church ceremony.

 

[Corki]

I suppose that depends on what type of protest you attend. Protests can get attention, putting pressure on the courts to make a decision or make more people aware of the issues within out country. They can do a lot of help, I believe.** One would be hard pressed to say the Million Man March was a waste of time.**

Really? I remember the million man march but have absolutely no recollection of what they were protesting. What decisions were made on the basis of that protest?

 

[Good_News_1]

Equality of result says gays should be allowed to marry.

Actually, the argument is equal protection before the law - access to identical legal benefits, without regard to gender.

I have no idea what you mean by “equality of result,” but even if it had a defined meaning (and I suspect it doesn’t), it doesn’t have application here.

 

[bosonhiggs]

Well, the 14th ammendment did NOT give you the right to vote, did it? It took the 19th ammendment to further expand the right to vote to include women. Why is it logical to expect that the 14th ammendment gives additional rights never intended by the founding fathers absent additional legislation (ie constitutional ammendment)?

States abridge the privileges of its citizens all the time. Look at the laws regulating drinking ages and phased driving privaleges. The regulation of marriage has always fallen to the states. The federal government does not (now) have any authority to usurp that.

I know the ammendments, I know it didn’t give me the right to vote. Changes, obviously, take time. I view the ruling of Prop 8 as unconstitutional a step in the right direction for equality.
Perhaps it is time for a new legislation that recognizes marriage within the LGBT community, and does not allow for discrimination against the community.

 

[Suudy]

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act sometimes referred to as DOMA, has also been found unconstitutional at the state appellate level, because it is the state’s right to determine the legal rights of marriage, and DOMA denies equal rights to same sex couples in states in which they are legally married.

And this doesn’t make any sense. As I understand it, DOMA allows states to refuse to recognize gay “marriages” from other states. So why should the states care about DOMA? What does Missouri care if Georgia refuses to recognize its marriages?

Advances in science and psychology show that that denying same sex legal marriage is an equal protection issue.

Science? Science is now an authority on legal and philosophical arguments?

(I assume you mean science in the modern sense of the term, i.e. empirical).

Just as the Church opposed interracial marriage and the abolition of slavery on scriptural grounds, it does so now with same gender marriage.

Which Church? You said “Church”, which on a Catholic message board implies the Catholic Church. I daresay you have your cases mixed, because I don’t see any Church teaching that has evern opposed interracial marriage.

Now, if you mean other churches, as in other denominations, perhaps. But certainly not the Catholic Church.

Time will show that the Church is causing suffering with its anachronistic views. Going further back in history, we know that the Church opposed theories of Evolution and Natural Selection, and also tried people for heresy when they proposed a heliocentric planetary motion. This is just another in the long tradition of being out of sync with realty.

Ummm…you’re history needs some work.

If you are referring to Galileo, read up on it. Copernicus posited heliocentrism before Galileo, but he was not tried for heresy. The issue with Galileo was not the theory, but the means by which he tried to promulgate it.

I’m also not familiar with the Church (i.e. the Catholic Church) was ever opposed to evolution or natural selection. In fact, it has been silent on the issue, having never made any authoritative statement on either theory.

Perhaps you should name your name to heart and seek the truth of these things. Unless you are using *petere *to mean “attack.”

On the topic of interracial marriage, the stopping point in the discussion was always, “It just isn’t natural. Anyone with any sense can see that. It is not what God intended.” No doubt, there have been popes who shared her view.

Really? I’d love to see a quote on that one. The fact is that you seem to be lumping the Catholic church in with a host of other denominations.