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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope dearly that the Supreme Court overrules this leftist judge, who it seems has taken leave of his senses. If it chooses to uphold this ruling, however, the case could very well end up as notorious as Roe v. Wade.
 
The law will be upheld when it reaches Supreme Court. It should be of no surprise that a homosexual judge would find a right of same-sex marriage.
 
Shellac said:
No we will see polygamy back first.
Click to expand...
No.

First gay marriage will spread across the nation forced on us by the courts. The will of the people, and the truth and witness of history, will be wholly ignored.

Second, the SC will uphold those rulings.

Third, things will quiet down for just a bit.

Fourth, other groups of people wanting to marry will emerge. They will have to fight less, but in the end they will be able to marry.
 
jjdrury81 said:
Because the courts have taken a stand against discrimination, fear and hatred.
Click to expand...
JJ, you are Catholic, and as a Catholic, you are obligated to reject homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. How do you square this kind of thinking in your mind?
 
estesbob said:
The law will be upheld when it reaches Supreme Court. It should be of no surprise that a homosexual judge would find a right of same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
I do not agree. Time will tell, but I am nearly 100% sure this is a done deal.
 
estesbob said:
The law will be upheld when it reaches Supreme Court. It should be of no surprise that a homosexual judge would find a right of same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
It all hangs on Justice Kennedy.

Congress will step in.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
It’s a sad day for all 50 states. “Couple” married in California moves to Idaho. They are still married…
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The federal DOMA prevents that from being a requirement. Not unless Idaho (or whatever state) passes a law or issues an executive order recognizing gay marriages from other states. New York state, Rhode Island and Maryland have done so, but those are the only ones.
 
Anyone able to tell if a stay has been ordered? I know NOM, anticipating a loss even last night, has not only filed appeal to 9th Circuit but was asking for a stay as well.
 
Dale_M said:
I don’t think so. The federal DOMA prevents that from being a requirement. Not unless Idaho (or whatever state) passes a law or issues an executive order recognizing gay marriages from other states. New York state, Rhode Island and Maryland have done so, but those are the only ones.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right, sir.
 
Interesting reading:

scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

The conclusion that the opposite sex requirement is “irrational” is based on the judge’s view that historical distinctions in gender roles are obsolete. (I’m getting this at about page 115).

If I follow the logic, because women no longer have the legal limitations they once did, and now the spouses can divide their responsibilities any way they please, there is no set gender role in society or legal classification based on gender. From the idea that gender roles are less relevant socially, the judge decides that gender itself is irrelevant. Pretty big leap, if I’m understanding the decision.
 
jjdrury81 is Catholic. He/she just thinks as for as the law in CA and USA gos…nothing is in there to stop same sex marriage.
 
richard_wang said:
I find it interesting that you as a Buddhist would support homosexuality.

For did not the Buddha say in the Dighajanu Sutra:

“These are the four drains on one’s store of wealth: debauchery in sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship, evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be expected, not its increase. In the same way, these are the four drains on one’s store of wealth: debauchery in sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship, evil companionship, evil camaraderie.”

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.than.html

And wouldn’t a homosexual’s inordinate attachment and identification of sexual practice be an attachment to Dukkha

And won’t that then violate Right View, Right Intention, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness of the Eight Noble Truths.

I just saying…
Click to expand...
Homosexuality does not equal debauchery. Also a homosexual is no more likely to have inordinate attachment and identification of sexual practice than a heterosexual.
 
jjdrury81 said:
Because the courts have taken a stand against discrimination, fear and hatred.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that this is about fearing gay people or hating them.

The question is whether the distinction between same sex and opposite sex couples is rational.
 
Good_News said:
Interesting reading:

scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

The conclusion that the opposite sex requirement is “irrational” is based on the judge’s view that historical distinctions in gender roles are obsolete. (I’m getting this at about page 115).

If I follow the logic, because women no longer have the legal limitations they once did, and now the spouses can divide their responsibilities any way they please, there is no set gender role in society or legal classification based on gender. From the idea that gender roles are less relevant socially, the judge decides that gender itself is irrelevant. Pretty big leap, if I’m understanding the decision.
Click to expand...
Keep reading and tell us more pls.
 
jjdrury81 said:
Because the courts have taken a stand against discrimination, fear and hatred.
Click to expand...
All the proposition said was that the state recognized marriages between man and women. How does that do anything you state? All men can marry a woman and vice versa. Where is the discrimination?
 
Brooklyn said:
JJ, you are Catholic, and as a Catholic, you are obligated to reject homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. How do you square this kind of thinking in your mind?
Click to expand...
I see no rational argument for denying homosexual couples the legal and civil rights that are granted heterosexual couples in this country.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
9th Circuit. What do you expect?😦
Click to expand...
No doubt. They are they have always freely re-written the Constitution from the bench. It is judicial activism that has destroyed democracy in America. Perhaps instead of trying to export democracy, we need to import some first.
 
Good_News said:
Interesting reading:

scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

The conclusion that the opposite sex requirement is “irrational” is based on the judge’s view that historical distinctions in gender roles are obsolete. (I’m getting this at about page 115).

If I follow the logic, because women no longer have the legal limitations they once did, and now the spouses can divide their responsibilities any way they please, there is no set gender role in society or legal classification based on gender. From the idea that gender roles are less relevant socially, the judge decides that gender itself is irrelevant. Pretty big leap, if I’m understanding the decision.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Well, if gender is irrelevant, I guess homosexual couples can bear children…legally anyway. I think gender may still be relevant biologically, but I guess we will have to wait for a judge to rule on that. 😛

“From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top