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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The motion has been stayed, so for the time being no same-sex marriage licenses will be granted.
Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706.
The motion to shorten time is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered.
The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided.
Click to expand...
So as it is now, prop 8 will be practically invalidated subsequent to an appeal, however if the plaintiffs can convince the judge to shorten the stay, then new same-sex marriage licenses will be issued prior to an appeal.
 
Kuan_Yin said:
Because they are called “whorehouses and brothels”
Click to expand...
If you are going to try to argue that the gay male community is no more debauched than the straight community (or the lesbian community), then you are bending yourself out of shape to ignore the obvious. Why?
 
irishpatrick said:
I believe that this ruling, and the clear support for it, is a major sign of how far people have removed themselves from the faith. I never did believe that people would just wake-up one day and follow some other system, I always believed it would be a slow (to us) pulling away due to societal pressures. I would guess that at least 90% of all people claiming to be Christians do not really hold fast to the faith, they have swapped the real faith and the truth for political correctness and tolerance and science and secularism and a series of other personal ideologies that they have allowed into their lives.

It is a very small number who truly follow the faith.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that unfortunately what you write is true. But the reason for that is we are so rich in this world that it blinds us to how spiritually poor we are. And our ministers and priests aren’t telling us either. I still feel that if the Catholic Church would preach as Christ commanded us to do, society could be saved.

For those who are truly following the faith, and I hope I am among them, it is our responsibility to pray and do reparations for the rest, and be as much of a witness as we can.
 
Brooklyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m looking at the Catholic YOuth Bible and mine does not use these words.
 
estesbob said:
It is a requirement of being a liberal that you blame Bush at least five times a day.
Click to expand...
Not at all! I’m quite liberal and I didn’t go around blaming him. He was my favorite conservative, and my differences with him revolved around policy, not around him personally.
 
richard_wang said:
The difference between a brothel and bathhouse is the difference between a restaurant and a dumpster.

One involves a level of commerce and presentation and the other allows anyone passing by to pick through it.
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about trying to pick gnats out of pepper. Yes, brothels are better because they’re based more on capitalism.

A restaurant and a dumpster.

Absolutely ridiculous.
 
Good_News said:
If you are going to try to argue that the gay male community is no more debauched than the straight community (or the lesbian community), then you are bending yourself out of shape to ignore the obvious. Why?
Click to expand...
It seems that you know a awful lot about gay sex, are you the expert on the subject?

I think if a male is prone to debauchery his orientation does not play a role other than a gay man will most likely find it for free, whereas a straight man will most likely have to pay. Just ask David Vitter, he had to pay for his debauchery
 
Brooklyn said:
Yes, I think that unfortunately what you write is true. But the reason for that is we are so rich in this world that it blinds us to how spiritually poor we are. And our ministers and priests aren’t telling us either. I still feel that if the Catholic Church would preach as Christ commanded us to do, society could be saved.

For those who are truly following the faith, and I hope I am among them, it is our responsibility to pray and do reparations for the rest, and be as much of a witness as we can.
Click to expand...
I agree. I am just saying that it would not surprise me if we are in the midst of the Great Apostasy, or at the very least a build-up to one huge painful chastisement.
 
Brooklyn said:
I think that liberals really should build a monument to Bush - if they can’t say anything else, it’s always: “It’s Bush’s fault.” What would they do without him?
Click to expand...
Not at all. As liberal as I am, I found things to praise in what Pres. Bush did - my favorite conservative!
 
Brooklyn said:
So why can’t we be that tenacious? 😦
Click to expand...
since 1996, where there were ZERO states with State Constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we now just 14 years later have THIRTY states with their State Constitution Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, (see these cool wiki maps);
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Marriage_amendment_animation.gif
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Defense_of_marriage_amendment_types_US.svg

What we need is to get the number into the mid-thirties, because then you will have TWO THIRDS of the country’s states with their Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Why is 2/3rds significant? Because that’s the amount of the congress that has to vote to pass a US Constitutional Amendment. Let weasely Democrats explain to the people in their own state why they voted against a US Constitution Amendment when their own state had one and is vurerable to another fascist judge overturning it because he decided to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

We need a US Constitutional Amendment before they get the Defense of Marriage Act overturned, and we only need another 5 or so states to have a two thirds of the country with State Amendments
 
irishpatrick said:
I agree. I am just saying that it would not surprise me if we are in the midst of the Great Apostasy, or at the very least a build-up to one huge painful chastisement.
Click to expand...
There is definitely something evil going on in our world, and I can’t see it ending very well, either.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
since 1996, where there were ZERO states with State Constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we now just 14 years later have THIRTY states with their State Constitution Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, (see these cool wiki maps);
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Marriage_amendment_animation.gif
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Defense_of_marriage_amendment_types_US.svg

What we need is to get the number into the mid-thirties, because then you will have TWO THIRDS of the country’s states with their Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Why is 2/3rds significant? Because that’s the amount of the congress that has to vote to pass a US Constitution Amendment. Let weasely Democrats explain to the people in their own state why they voted against a US Constitution Amendment when their own state had one and is vurerable to another fascist judge overturning it because he decided to to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

We need a US Constitution Amendment before they get the Defense of Marriage Act overturned, and we only need another 5 or so states to have a two thirds of the country with State Amendments
Click to expand...
Thank you! You just made me feel a whole lot better. It’ll happen 🙂
 
scipio337 said:
pfft. We have a Constitutional process for elections, via the Electoral College.

Guess who every major newspaper who conducted a recount had winning FL? Hint: it wasn’t algore.
Click to expand...
Actually, they stopped the recount, as per SC
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
since 1996, where there were ZERO states with State Constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we now just 14 years later have THIRTY states with their State Constitution Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, (see these cool wiki maps);
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Marriage_amendment_animation.gif
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Defense_of_marriage_amendment_types_US.svg

What we need is to get the number into the mid-thirties, because then you will have TWO THIRDS of the country’s states with their Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Why is 2/3rds significant? Because that’s the amount of the congress that has to vote to pass a US Constitutional Amendment. Let weasely Democrats explain to the people in their own state why they voted against a US Constitution Amendment when their own state had one and is vurerable to another fascist judge overturning it because he decided to to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

We need a US Constitution Amendment before they get the Defense of Marriage Act overturned, and we only need another 5 or so states to have a two thirds of the country with State Amendments
Click to expand...
The problem is the actual will of the people has changed since then. Sadly. They have begun to slowly embrace ss marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top