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

[bosonhiggs]

Interesting.

So if marriage is defined to be “A union that may be formed by any two willing human beings who are above the age of consent, not already married, not within a certain ‘genetic distance’ from one another, and of the opposite gender” I am denying equal protection to same sex individuals- but am I not denying that same protection to those who wish to marry those who are unwilling, below the age of consent, close relatives, or already married?

I am not making a slippery slope argument here- simply pointing out that if refusing to recognize a relationship as marriage is denying equal protection, then many other criteria are also discriminatory- in fact, ALL other criteria are also discriminatory.

It is possible for individuals who are below the age of consent, close relatives, and already married, to get married. It is simply frowned upon by society.

Why would you force someone into marriage? That is horrible.

 

[exoflare]

are you the sarcastic humor police?

last time i check, bad jokes are still within my constitutional right

I wish it was a bad joke.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Actually, the hysteria is on the liberal side. I challenged posters in another thread on the logical reasons for denying someone the right to marry an inanimate object, and all I got was emotion.

Besides, liberals have no problem comparing a homosexual relationship to a heterosexual relationship. I’ve never seen a liberal care about offending anyone with that ridiculous comparison.

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.

 

[choy]

I wish it was a bad joke.

i know
its a bad joke because its a bad scenario that we can see happening in the future

 

[Ridgerunner]

Things like this really are discouraging, and one does not know how it will all turn out.

One is strongly tempted to rethink one’s relationship to one’s society. If this society is, indeed, ready to accept (and teach the young of course) that gay “marriage” is equivalent to real marriage, adding it to abortion and fetal stem cell cannibalization as part of its societal mores, then one is tempted to mentally divorce oneself from that society, with which one once identified, and consider it alien. It’s disconcerting, though perhaps one should have always considered that one’s family, one’s Church and one’s God as being the only “society” worthy of the name. Maybe the “Communion of Saints” is the only society with which we should identify.

On the other hand, one can look at one’s individual region and, for some, there can be much within it in the way of mores and religious bent that is worthy of one’s self-identification and one’s allegience. Perhaps I am fortunate in being in such a region.

But not all are and, in any event, it often does seem that it doesn’t matter very much what the people in a society think about things. There are always those whose inclination it is to hate what a society (or even some part of it) has been and to change it by action of the strong arm of the state. Such people are very keen to take hold of the levers of state power; keener than most of us are.

One is tempted to ponder anew the ancient biblical injunction against placing one’s faith in kings. Like the Hebrews of old, we nevertheless have chosen kings and, like them, are living to regret having done it. At least many of us are.

 

[tjm190]

It is possible for individuals who are below the age of consent, close relatives, and already married, to get married. It is simply frowned upon by society.

Really now? So I could get married to my mother without her divorcing my father? And then go enter a three way marriage with two of my younger sisters? And what about me and that rock I found in my shoe?

Why would you force someone into marriage? That is horrible.

LEGISLATING MORALITY IS FORBIDDEN!!!1! (I admit that is the weakest comparison)

 

[Dale_M]

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

I think that is often true for many people, regardless of their political orientation.

It is a requirement of being a liberal that you blame Bush at least five times a day.

Yanno… I sometimes wonder if the people who comment in the News forums think that CAF membership requires gratuitous swipes at liberals at least five times a day.

 

[Suudy]

It definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Perhaps. And even if so, only because of judicial review.

I think it doesn’t for the simple matter that men and women are different. We treat them differently is all kinds of ways. Only men must register with the selective service. Men and women have separate restrooms. Men are excluded from the decision process for abortion (they have no legal right to prevent it, even if they are the father). So we already apply un-“Equal Protection” based upon sex.

Why should marriage be any different?

Who cares if Marshall’s judicial review doctrine is what it took to apply it to state law as well? It is used now, so you kinda have to accept that, unless you wish for them to ignore it.

I care. And lots of other people too. It used to be the case that states were independent entities in a confederation with a limited federal government. Instead of “We the people of the United States” it has become “We the people of the United States”. The states have lost their soverignty which was protected by the 10th Amendment.

The other reason it matters, is because it basically emasculates the 10th amendment. Now the federal government can invoke the commerce clause and judicial review and wipe out just about any state law it decides it doesn’t like. But that violates what the entire point of the 10th amendment, and it seems quite clear to me was not the original intent of the framers.

In fact, I don’t remember Marshall even being involved in the writing of the Constitution, despite knowing many of the authors, and does what he wants rather than what was intended by the authors. (Yes, yes, I know that he was part of the Virginia house of delegates, but he was not part of the Philadelphia convention that wrote the Constitution).

But he certainly upheld his Federalist leanings when he became Chief Justice.

According to due process
“[N]o Person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Franchises, Life, Liberty or Property but by due process of Law.”
the LGBT community is being deprived of their privilege to Marry.

What privilege? You are assuming the conclusion. You have to prove that a privilege for gay people ot marry exists before you can apply due process.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

I think that is often true for many people, regardless of their political orientation.

Yanno… I sometimes wonder if the people who comment in the News forums think that CAF membership requires gratuitous swipes at liberals at least five times a day.

It’s the best way to keep their membership active. I’m sure they receive an alert if they miss their quota.

 

[irishpatrick]

As a female, I greatly want equality. You can have both, I do not understand where you are coming up with the idea that you can’t, or the idea that this will somehow end religion… We will not lose anything by acknowledging that EVERYONE is equal (are we not all equal in the eyes of God?).

Sure, created equal by God. Yet, in human society it is impossible to have full equality and full liberty. Please, as I said, think it through.

Here is just one rock solid unimpeachable example:

*

Say in the near future same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Gays, by federal law, have the right to marry. Churches MUST abide by federal discrimation laws. If a Catholic Church says they refuse to marry a gay couple wanting to marry in its church after the federal laws are passed, than the couple will be legally able to take that Catholic Church to court and force the Church to marry that couple. The Catholic Church in that case would have two real options: (1) comply with the court mandate to marry the couple, which obviously would be a full breach of the faith it holds; (2) Close its doors and go underground or at least go private.

Now, even if that Church went private and dumped tax exempt status, the feds would still be able to go after it just like is happening with the Boy Scouts and other organizations. Someone will find a way to charge the Catholic Church with hate crimes.​

*

Can you not see? This is not about equality, it is about destroying Christianity and the Bible!

If we pushed for equality in result in everything, as the left wants, than our freedoms give way to that equality. We will not be free to do a plethora of things we do today because laws will be passed to make everyone the same. Just today I was listening to a woman who wants to pass laws stating that it is illegal to discriminate against any person for their appearance. That means if company X does not hire a person that has tatoos from head-to-toe, they can be sued into hring the person. If a person who is grossly overweight fails to get a job at health club, that person can sue stating they were not hired because of their appearance. Soon, companies will have to hire nearly everyone…no freedom to choose in any of that.

I can make a list of a zillion things…think it through…when we force equality of result, we lose freedoms–FACT, not a guess.

There are profound reasons why Patrick Henry said: “…but, as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

 

[Dale_M]

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.

o.0

From what I have read on an LGBT blog, the gays in bathhouses are often more picky than prostitutes.

I think the comparison of massage parlors or brothels or “gentleman’s clubs” with bathhouses isn’t too far afield. The fact that money changes hands doesn’t ennoble the behavior.

 

[exoflare]

Yanno… I sometimes wonder if the people who comment in the News forums think that CAF membership requires gratuitous swipes at liberals at least five times a day.

They’re not gratuitous if they’re true.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

They’re not gratuitous if they’re true.

Exactly.

 

[Suudy]

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?

There aren’t differences? Really?

Do I have a right to bear children, as a man? After all, there are no differences between genders.

Do I have a right to enter a women’s restroom? After all, there are no differences betwen genders.

As a man, do I have a right refuse to enter the draft? After all, there are no differnces between genders.

There are differences. And they already are enforced. Why is marriage any different?

 

[Dale_M]

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

Yes and no. You are right that 2/3 of the states will need to approve an amendment to the US Constitution. However, the fact that 2/3 of the states have amended their state constitutions is irrelevant, except that it indicates that voters are inclined to support a similar amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[rlg94086]

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?

 

[bosonhiggs]

Really now? So I could get married to my mother without her divorcing my father? And then go enter a three way marriage with two of my younger sisters? And what about me and that rock I found in my shoe?

LEGISLATING MORALITY IS FORBIDDEN!!!1! (I admit that is the weakest comparison)

I’m sure there is a church somewhere that would be willing to do that, if you look hard enough. (as for that rock, have you heard about that woman who married the Eiffel Tower? I think you and that rock would be fine.)

 

[choy]

I’m sure there were also a lot of people in the past who were sure that an absurd contradiction in terms like “gay marriage” could never catch on either, and they probably would have been just as embarrased to hear anyone speak out about the writing on the wall during that time as well.

The thing is, you’re thinking in terms of the progress pop culture indoctrination has made TODAY but what reason do you have to think it won’t go any further than it already has?

As far as paedophilia is concerned, it’s easy enough to see at least one potential route they have for accomplishing this… just slowly begin putting the spotlight more and more on so-called “children’s rights” issues (first the easier ones, like the “right” to not be told what to do by their parents, etc) and when the general public has been adequately conditioned and desensitized to that, start hashing out propaganda something like “children are people too, aren’t they? why are they denied the RIGHT to legal consent that everyone else has? they’ve just been oppressed by backward thinking closed-minded society all this time but we’re finally going to liberate them!” From there you don’t have to use your imagination…

i agree with you 100%. its funny but 20-30 years ago, it would have been unheard of for same sex couples getting the “right to marry”. i shudder to think where we will be 20-30 years from now

 

[tjm190]

I’m sure there is a church somewhere that would be willing to do that, if you look hard enough. (as for that rock, have you heard about that woman who married the Eiffel Tower? I think you and that rock would be fine.)

I’m not talking about churches, I’m having about having my marriages recognized by the state. Isn’t that homosexuals are after?

 

[irishpatrick]

i agree with you 100%. its funny but 20-30 years ago, it would have been unheard of for same sex couples getting the “right to marry”. i shudder to think where we will be 20-30 years from now

I predict that if Christians in very large numbers do not wake up, and very soon, we will be a place where the Church has gone underground and hate crimes laws will apply to almost everything a person might say in public (someone can always find offense with any opinion). Hate crimes laws will wash away the constitution. The nation 20 years from now, if it continues as it is, will be unrecognizable to thos who lived up to the 70s and perhaps early 80s.