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

[edwest2]

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.

The Polys (polyamory) are next in line.

Followed by the Zoos (bestiality).

God bless,
Ed

 

[Adam1986]

Oh by the way…

When do I get to marry my sister…my father…or a 12 year old boy?

I don’t want to start responding to everything that I personally disagree with, but this particular argument does truly INFURIATE me.

Let’s see when do you get to marry your sister? NEVER. It’s incest and it will NEVER be legal.

When do you get to marry your father? NEVER. It’s incest and it will NEVER be legal.

When do you get to marry a 12 year old boy? NEVER. That is pediophilia and it will NEVER be legal.

It INFURIATES me to no end to see someone try and equate the LOVE between two men or two women to something as disgusting, sick, and EVIL as sex with a child.

The incest argument is just not well thought out. No offense, but it doesn’t make any sense. Nobody’s going to legalize incest. I mean, really.

 

[Good_News_1]

But as a gay man I must say, this means more then just the right to marry. This is about equality and human dignity.

Respectfully, can you explain this to me? I thought it was about the right to marry. How is it about more than that?

How, exactly, would your life be different under marriage than under civil unions? You’d have the same legal rights. You’d live in the same house, do the same things. I understand the issue with public benefits, inheritance, hospital visits, etc - but what else does “marriage” confer in your eyes, that is of any value?

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.

But that isn’t the church’s position, as I understand it. And the ruling was about civil marriage. I think everyone understands that the Church will have different rules.

I am not in agreement with the decision, but I respect that your relationship with the Church is something for you to sort out.

 

[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.

EDIT: SORRY, I ACCIDENTALLY DELETED THIS ON THE LAST PAGE.

 

[JimG]

I don’t want to start responding to everything that I personally disagree with, but this particular argument does truly INFURIATE me.

Let’s see when do you get to marry your sister? NEVER. It’s incest and it will NEVER be legal.

When do you get to marry your father? NEVER. It’s incest and it will NEVER be legal.

When do you get to marry a 12 year old boy? NEVER. That is pediophilia and it will NEVER be legal.

It INFURIATES me to no end to see someone try and equate the LOVE between two men or two women to something as disgusting, sick, and EVIL as sex with a child.

The incest argument is just not well thought out. No offense, but it doesn’t make any sense. Nobody’s going to legalize incest. I mean, really.

Doesn’t make any sense? That’s what was said about same sex “marriage.” And consensual sex between a man and an adolescent does not deserve equal protection of the law? What if the boy wants to marry the pedophile? Do adolescents not have equal rights under the 14th amendment? Let’s test it in the 9th Circuit.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Do you live in California? Have you ever considered that this may indeed be a constitutional issue, no matter that you don’t like it? I’m not crazy about this, but don’t make rash requirements on Californians for no intelligent reason.

drudgereport.com/

---

IMO, all faithful Christians should leave California and leave it for whatever the Lord desires. It seems no sensible moral battles can be won there anymore.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Where I am in the Central Valley, dude, you’re right on the money. It’s so red here that it’s bleeding! Red headquarters!

The sad part is, you carve out SF and LA, and we are a red state.

I do think that when this reaches the SCOTUS (please God), the law will be upheld.

Which will allow each state to craft a law that is exactly the same. I don’t see 1 state that won’t do this.

ie, we have lost a battle, but we may have just won the war

 

[edwest2]

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.

What is the basis for human dignity?

Same sex marriage does not offer equal protection from anything. It is simply an attempt at social engineering to normalize a particular behavior. You’ll note that many laws are not against individuals. You can be the greatest person in the world but if you drive too fast you can get a ticket. If you have a lapse of judgement and end up driving drunk - same thing.

I’m sure if you call 911 that the operator will not ask for your sexual orientation before sending help, the same if you end up in a hospital.

It’s a huge problem for the Church which has stated the reasons it is opposed to same sex marriage. It matters a great deal.

Please explain how, as a married gay man, you would achieve what you call equality?

God bless,
Ed

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Castro scares me! I hate the politics of that city but God I love my Giants…

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!!!

 

[JimG]

Actually, when it comes to marriage cases presented to a Catholic tribunal, the Catholic position is that a marriage is valid until proven otherwise.

If a Catholic marries outside the Church, that is easier to show, since the Catholic violated Church marriage laws. But if two non-Catholics marry outside the Church, the Church presumes the marriage to be a valid natural marriage.

It would not, of course, recognize homosexual marriage, because the essential elements of marriage (a man and a woman) are not present. Neither a sacramental nor a natural marriage could be validly contracted.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Well, the 14th ammendment did NOT give you the right to vote, did it? It took the 19th ammendment to further expand the right to vote to include women. Why is it logical to expect that the 14th ammendment gives additional rights never intended by the founding fathers absent additional legislation (ie constitutional ammendment)?

I don’t quite understand. The 14th amendment wasn’t drafted by any founding father, so their opinions concerning it would be not only irrelevant but probably absent, no?

States abridge the privileges of its citizens all the time. Look at the laws regulating drinking ages and phased driving privaleges. The regulation of marriage has always fallen to the states. The federal government does not (now) have any authority to usurp that.

Absolutely correct, but I think the distinction used here is a matter of rational basis for the discrimination and what they call legal scrutiny. I’ve been paying a bit of attention to the arguments used during this trial and though my sympathies were with NOM and the Alliance Defense Fund I must admit that their defense was quite pathetic and they even admitted to having no real rational basis for the discrimination.

No matter what, this is a losing battle we’re fighting, which is why I wish our constitutionally secular state would either revoke the 1st Amendment and make Catholicism the state religion, or simply get out of the marriage industry which ought to be the purview of churches.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Pretty sad when we’ve elevated the sin of sodomy to something close to, let alone exactly as dignified as the Godly estate of marriage. You may be happy because this court is condoning and reinforcing your sinful view of this abomination but it’s pretty sad that I and so many other millions of Catholics and Protestants are going to have to explain why two men are kissing on TV and exchanging rings playing like they’re married.

Secular sinful culture can call this whatever they want but it’ll be a cold day in that h-e double hockey sticks place when I consider it such…

Sad day indeed. Sickening in fact. Perhaps the end times are closer than we think. Maybe I won’t have to worry about saving for my retirement. The end might be closer than I realized!

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.

EDIT: SORRY, I ACCIDENTALLY DELETED THIS ON THE LAST PAGE.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Castro scares me! I hate the politics of that city but God I love my Giants…

I love my Giants too (especially our recent whooping of a dredged team which shall not be named), but why does the Castro scare you?

Of all the districts here it’s the cleanest and friendliest. The freaks don’t come out as often as the news would have you believe, and I honestly feel safer in heathen Castro than the predominantly Catholic Mission district.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t quite understand. The 14th amendment wasn’t drafted by any founding father, so their opinions concerning it would be not only irrelevant but probably absent, no?

Absolutely correct, but I think the distinction used here is a matter of rational basis for the discrimination and what they call legal scrutiny. I’ve been paying a bit of attention to the arguments used during this trial and though my sympathies were with NOM and the Alliance Defense Fund I must admit that their defense was quite pathetic and they even admitted to having no real rational basis for the discrimination.

No matter what, this is a losing battle we’re fighting, which is why I wish our constitutionally secular state would either revoke the 1st Amendment and make Catholicism the state religion, or simply get out of the marriage industry which ought to be the purview of churches.

There is no “marriage industry.” The State cannot compel people to get married.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ConcernedApathy]

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

I notice you chose to completely ignore all I said about you not approaching the discussion with respect.

So, there it is.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

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.

Quick quibble though, buddy. From what I understand an extra-ecclesial marriage is considered invalid for Catholics only. The Church recognizes the marriages of other individuals from other faiths, as long as one of the parties is not Catholic.

 

[rlg94086]

Of course, that could be turned around to say “I’ve never seen a conservative care about offending anyone with the the ridiculous notion that a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual relationship.”

Well, sure, but that would probably only be ridiculous to someone who thinks there is no difference between genders.

Besides, that is exactly the point I was making. Anytime someone makes an anti-homosexual-marriage comment, people claim they are offended, as if that discounts any point the person made. If that is the case, I say it is a two-way street. Those who are anti-homosexual-marriage can completely discount the point the pro-homosexual-marriage person is making.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

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?

Well, you are obviously a white guy from Texas. Why would you care?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

There is no “marriage industry.” The State cannot compel people to get married.

God bless,
Ed

I’m very well aware of that, but thank you brother for reminding me to be extra prudent with my choice of words lest I confuse those who wish to play games of semantics.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Note that I already admitted by error in typing. Continue reading through the thread and you’ll see I’ve abdicated on that statement.

I did see that after I posted this. Thank you.