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

[irishpatrick]

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.

Nonsense. They will be forced to marry gay couples under a bunch of new laws that will be passed, mainly under discrimnation and hate crimes areas. Mark my words, this will lead to Churches be legally forced to marry gay couples. I know that is not pleasant to think about, yet it is the only logical conclusion to draw from the way things are going.

Again, have a good night.

 

[Suudy]

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

Only benefits? What about restrictions?

As a man, I should have the benefit of not having to register for the draft, as women do.

As a man, I should have the benefit of forcing the woman bearing my child to have an abortion, as women do.

 

[RACJ]

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.

Perhaps instead, it is time to disallow "judge shopping", which in this case allowed the plaintiffs to procure a homosexual judge! This is sick, and a shredding of our rule of law. Everyone knows that most gay people are homosexuals first, and the Constitution and moral traditions be damned. :mad: Rob

 

[LucyK]

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.

When has anti-interracial marriage ever been the official teaching of the Catholic church?

 

[RACJ]

As a man, I should have the benefit of forcing the woman bearing my child to have an abortion, as women do.
No, logically, men should be able to repudiate any financial responsibility for a child at any time during the entire nine months of pregnancy. :blush: Rob

 

[Corki]

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.

Current tax law allows tax-exempt organizations to advocate for issues with regard to voting. As long as the Church is not advocating for or against individual candidates, they are compliant. If you want to include issues as an exclusion for tax-exempt status, you would have to advocate removing tax exempt status from every organization with an “issue” that might be addressed by the government. That would include everything from the American Cancer Society to your local food pantry.

However, I agree with you about the Church. I think the Church, at least on the local level (diocese), should step away from its tax exempt status. Priests and lay workers would be free to make clear and unambiguous statements about Catholic teaching such as abortion, health care and “gay” marriages. If organizations like “Catholics” for Choice can file suit agaist anti-abortion speech (even though it’s clearly legal as its issue based), imagine what trouble will be caused by organizations trying to force the same-sex marriage issue on the Church.

 

[bosonhiggs]

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?

They were gathering to draw attention to problems within primarily black communities, urging individuals to take responsibility for their actions and towns and improve their lives. It was part of a larger movement that wanted to increase awareness for minority issues and increase voter registration. The outcome was a marked change in black society. There were drops in the murder rate, increases in voter registration, improvement in black communities, and a change in the image of black men (with regards to stereotypes). It also inspired several other movements and increased unity among minority communities.

 

[bosonhiggs]

Perhaps instead, it is time to disallow “judge shopping”, which in this case allowed the plaintiffs to procure a homosexual judge! This is sick, and a shredding of our rule of law.

Have you read the final ruling? I have a link to the whole transcript if you would like it. I highly doubt the judge’s sexuality had anything to do with the decision, as it is quite clear that the 14th amendment (in regards to equality) has been violated. This judge is not the first person to say so.

Everyone knows that most gay people are homosexuals first, and the Constitution and moral traditions be damned. Rob

I think that is an extremely generalized statement.

 

[edwest2]

The LA Times has a reporter there. Here is her article, which looks as if it is being updated.

latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html

Marriage is a fundamental right? I guess I didn’t see that coming. The equal protection makes sense, though.

“irrational classification”?

Man + woman

does not equal

Man + man

or Woman + woman.

The irrational part is what?

“equal protection”? Gay people are free to marry a member of the opposite sex. They just don’t want to. So where are they not getting equal protection?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Suudy]

 No, logically, men should be able to repudiate any financial responsibility for a child at any time during the entire nine months of pregnancy. :blush: Rob

That’s a different aspect, and I agree (at least logically).

 

[bosonhiggs]

“irrational classification”?

Gay people are free to marry a member of the opposite sex. They just don’t want to. So where are they not getting equal protection?

God bless,
Ed

I could take this quote many places, Ed, but I will only say this…They are not being allowed to marry member of the same sex, which is the problem.

 

[Kevin42]

Gay people are free to marry a member of the opposite sex. They just don’t want to. So where are they not getting equal protection?

God bless,
Ed

Some do and others would gladly do it if they could, but do you think anyone of the opposite sex wants to marry a gay person? What kind of a healthy marriage would that be?

 

[RACJ]

Have you read the final ruling? I have a link to the whole transcript if you would like it. I highly doubt the judge’s sexuality had anything to do with the decision, as it is quite clear that the 14th amendment (in regards to equality) has been violated. This judge is not the first person to say so.

 Ahem... This nut in a black robe overruled thousands of years of tradition and the U.S. Constitution, and his "gayness" played no part? Just try to find ANY evidence that ANYONE who played a part in passing the 14th Amendment had homosexuality in mind. Two of a kind cannot produce children, and REAL marriage is an institution set up to protect and respect the most innocent among us: children. You can't fool all the people all the time. This PC "judge" is a total fraud, and discerning people can smell the stench. Rob :)

 

[bosonhiggs]

bosonhiggs;6913732:

Have you read the final ruling? I have a link to the whole transcript if you would like it. I highly doubt the judge’s sexuality had anything to do with the decision, as it is quite clear that the 14th amendment (in regards to equality) has been violated. This judge is not the first person to say so.

 Ahem... This nut in a black robe overruled thousands of years of tradition and the U.S. Constitution, and his "gayness" played no part? Just try to find ANY evidence that ANYONE who played a part in passing the 14th Amendment had homosexuality in mind. Two of a kind cannot produce children, and REAL marriage is an institution set up to protect and respect the most innocent among us: children. You can't fool all the people all the time. This PC "judge" is a total fraud, and discerning people can smell the stench. Rob :)

I will get back to you with a coherent response tomorrow, Rob. I’ve got to go out now.

Goodnight all. I shall be back

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Well, when all else fails, Texas can still secede from the Union! I guess I will just move back to my home state and wait for the inevitable, lol! But, seriously, we shouldn’t be surprised. What did you expect the END TIMES to look like? Moral and full of devout Catholics? The worse it gets, the sooner Jesus comes back to save us!

Does that mean we build the fence in Oklahoma?

 

[Barb3]

I certainly haven’t read all the pages for this particular topic, but feel I must add my thoughts because I LIVE in San Francisco – I must say this decision is a DISASTER!!! The “gays” have literally taken over the city – the Church had to close the Catholic grammar school in the Castro District because there just weren’t enough children to attend the school. A number of my friends grew up in the Castro District, and years ago it was definitely a middle class neighborhood – I honestly don’t know if they have also closed the Catholic Church in that area.
I don’t care what the judges are “thinking” but do know it’s NOT marriage and can nev er be considered marriage – there is no way a man/man or woman/woman can ever have children (unless someone helps out and that would definitely have to be a man-woman situation).
I’m not surprised at our judges because through the years thjey have come up with some STUPID decisions, but I am also extremely disappointed!!!

 

[Adam1986]

Well, I’m not sure if this is the best first post for myself, but I for one am beyond happy about this ruling.

Now before you all throw stones and ask me if I know of the Catholic teachings… of course I do. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. But as a gay man I must say, this means more then just the right to marry. This is about equality and human dignity.

Now I could literally, post pages on this topic, but I won’t because I am not here to change any of your hearts, just as I as ask that you do not push your beliefs on me in a derogatory way. OF COURSE you are all free to tell me I am wrong and I will respond back in a like manner because that’s the point of a public forum .

The one HUGE HUGE HUGE point I want to make is this; if the Catholic Church and supposedly God do not recognize ANY marriage outside of the Church either between a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, then this shouldn’t be a problem at all. And in accordance Catholics should support same-sex marriage not for the “non existent marriage” but for the fact that all this does is offer equal protection. not a marriage, WHICH many Catholics already support fully.

 

[JimG]

Well, let’s see. The drafters of the Constitution probably did not intend to legalize same sex “marriage.” But surely the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant to legalize same sex marriage. Like abortion, it’s one of those rights that have been there buried in there somewhere all along, and we just overlooked it somehow. That would explain everything.

Next, equal rights for pederasty.

 

[edwest2]

I could take this quote many places, Ed, but I will only say this…They are not being allowed to marry member of the same sex, which is the problem.

Why do they want to institutionalize their sex practices? Twice, voters in California said no to same sex marriage.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

The reason you got “emotion” as you call it is because you approached it with zero respect. You think its so out of the realm of possibility for a same sex relationship to actually be a relationship so you compare it with loving a toaster or a tablespoon. Much like the person who starts off a conversation with the phrase; “Now I don’t want to offend anybody…” and then proceeds to purposefully say the most offensive things possible in the ugliest ways you think that by posing a clear dig as a question you give it some legitimacy.

You don’t speak with respect, you don’t begin with respect, so you are afforded none. That is where the “emotion” comes from.

Again, does it bother you that conservatives are offended by the ridiculous proposition of two men or two women “marrying?”