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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kuan_Yin said:
Homosexuality does not equal debauchery. Also a homosexual is no more likely to have inordinate attachment and identification of sexual practice than a heterosexual.
Click to expand...
A man being attracted to a man is an inordinate attraction.
 
jjdrury81 said:
I see no rational argument for denying homosexual couples the legal and civil rights that are granted heterosexual couples in this country.
Click to expand...
Nobody is denying people who engage in homosexual behavior the right to marry. They have the exact same right to marry as do all Americans regardless of race, creed, gender or country of national origin.
 
jjdrury81 said:
I see no rational argument for denying homosexual couples the legal and civil rights that are granted heterosexual couples in this country.
Click to expand...
But, you do think it is rational to disregard the rights of the voters. Interesting. Why, not get it to the vote again? The way this was done was wrong. And, that should add to questioning it. Lets just keep allowing freedoms to be taken away.
 
jjdrury81 said:
I see no rational argument for denying homosexual couples the legal and civil rights that are granted heterosexual couples in this country.
Click to expand...
JJ, as a Catholic, you are treading on very dangerous ground here. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. "

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Please be very careful. You are separating yourself from the Church.
 
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...
What is interesting about this ruling is the judge stated that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution. In the past the favorable same sex marriage rulings were always regarding a state constitution…so this will be interesting to see where this leads and how it will affect Federal policies regarding LGBT rights. At the moment there is the Massachusetts ruling that strikes down DOMA that is heading towards the US Supreme Court
 
phoenix3212 said:
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.
Click to expand...
As a side note –
According to Wikipedia, Vaughn Walker was nominated to this court by George H. W. Bush, not exactly a raving liberal. Nancy Pelosi was among House members opposing his nomination due to, among other reasons, his alleged insensitivity to gays.

The amount of irony here is just astounding.
 
Brooklyn said:
JJ, as a Catholic, you are treading on very dangerous ground here. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Please be very careful. You are separating yourself from the Church.
Click to expand...
I am not. I am well aware of what the Catechism has to say on the matter.

That should not, however, influence public policy in any way.
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
What did Christ actually say about homosexuality. I can’t remember.
Click to expand...
I Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”

There are other verses in the Bible, but I think this one will do for now.
 
Kuan_Yin said:
I am overjoyed!
A monumental day for civil rights. Equality won today.

Civil Rights of a minority should never be voted on and dictated by the whims of the majority…
Click to expand...
Here’s what I don’t get. Minorities should only be limited to ethnic groups. Ethnicities by definition, pass down to another generation, something a man and a man, or a woman and a woman can’t possibly do (artificial means and adoption don’t count).

With this thinking, then thieves, murderers, etc., are all a minority group. Anyone could find a group of people, even a few dozen, and claim they’re a minority at something. At some point, there’ll be so many little laws saying what you can and can’t say/do/think/write, that, well, I’m not even sure how to explain it.

Although, I suppose you could say that murderers, thieves and so on could teach the next generation to do the same, but then the question is where do you draw the line? Legalize all forms of lifestyles, then you have anarchy.
 
jjdrury81 said:
I see no rational argument for denying homosexual couples the legal and civil rights that are granted heterosexual couples in this country.
Click to expand...
California has had domestic partnerships that offer equal protection and rights.

Since 1999.

Perhaps this part of the ruling is more telling:
…evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. …
Click to expand...
Its not about legal or civil rights, its about moral equivalence.
 
Kuan_Yin said:
Homosexuality does not equal debauchery. Also a homosexual is no more likely to have inordinate attachment and identification of sexual practice than a heterosexual.
Click to expand...
Did not the Buddha say that pandakas not be allowed to be ordained because they can not easily overcome their sexual misconduct?
 
texasnan said:
As a side note –
According to Wikipedia, Vaughn Walker was nominated to this court by George H. W. Bush, not exactly a raving liberal. Nancy Pelosi was among House members opposing his nomination due to, among other reasons, his alleged insensitivity to gays.

The amount of irony here is just astounding.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that was before he was outed? People change.
 
AmyS said:
But, you do think it is rational to disregard the rights of the voters. Interesting. Why, not get it to the vote again? The way this was done was wrong. And, that should add to questioning it. Lets just keep allowing freedoms to be taken away.
Click to expand...
It was done quite successfully in the 2000 presidential election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top