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

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Okay, then. So Catholics think that when a man or a woman believes that he or she is in a committed sexual relationship with another man or woman, that that’s always bad.

If you want to restrict the rights of a class because of religion, you can do that – but you’ll need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It’s always bad.

One problem is that Marriage is being hi-jacked to promote whatever agenda is desired – through manipulating words and actions. Through slick wording and behaving like a spoiled children words and actions are slowly becoming undefinable, Constitutionally.

For example, the 19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Does that mean voting cannot be denied depending upon one’s state of virginity? Or sex that day? If enough deceiving people wanted to ram it through the courts and lawyers, two-year-olds would win the right to vote with the opinion that it didn’t mean “gender” at all but an action.

Sound silly? Really?

The 19th amendment is Woman’s Suffrage. OK women can not be denied or abridged the right to pray because of sexual actions. Look it up.

Oh no is the 19th Amendment a violation of the 1st Amendment? Can’t exclude the chanters.

The 3rd Amendment? Quartering of Soldiers? “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

OK that means a home dweller can hack a soldier into four pieces if the owner (bank, landlord, resident?) wants to in peacetime or as prescribed by law during time of war. Are apartments and condos excluded (don’t even go into mobile homes). We need to amend The Constitution if we want to exclude apartments, condos and mobile homes.

The recent opinion of “Prop. 8” won’t be the last time words are being used to justify the results. If the Liar wants to Deceive through The Constitution he will use our pride of “wordsmithing” to ram through whatever it has on its target.

 

[logic_oriented]

actually, i think the next step after this is an “orgy” family. 3 husbands and 4 wives in one household. yes, there’s no more limits to marriage. its coming

Yes, that’s what I meant. As I understand it, polygyny, polyandry, and group marriages can all fall under the umbrella term of polygamy. I think we’ll see examples of all three.

this will have more punch than lowering the drinking age. since minors cannot vote, they cannot change the law on drinking. but for marriages between an older person and a minor? 1/2 of that marriage is a voter. it can be done

Really? You think there are more adults who want to marry people under the age of 16 to 18 (depending on state) than there are voters between the ages of 18 and 21? I don’t.

animals have already been assigned human dignity and rights by the government. marriage is only the natural next step. since they have feelings as many claim, they they can get married like humans. i know this sounds ridiculous, but so does gay marriage 25 years ago. and its here today.

Animals have very limited rights. Marriage is in no way the next step. Before we got there, we would have to establish property rights, and a lot more besides, including a right not to be killed. I don’t think America is going to give up its burgers. Ever.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Two people of the same gender can get together, exchange vows, and get married in the eyes of the state in a handful of states in the union.

Of course, you understand that.

What you *really *mean is that, in the eyes of God, marriage between two men or two women isn’t possible. So, really, this goes right back to what I said about a lack of rational basis in the eyes of the law. The judge here can’t just say, "Oh, well, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that gay marriage exists, so really I can’t rule in favor of something that doesn’t exist.

From there you get right back to the superiority issue, once again without a rational basis in the eyes of the law – and all the due process and equal protection issues wound up with it. And at that point, you need a constitutional amendment.

There are legislative processes to these sorts of things. If you want to restrict the rights of minorities, you’re free to do so, but only if you change the appropriate law first. In this case, you have to go right to the top.

Of course I understand it. In this country we have free will. The other countries do too but don’t realize it anymore because they have misused free will to enslave themselves, which is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

So-called same sex marriage isn’t possible but misuse of free will results in one thinking it possible.

The superiority issue is that of the created mocking and denying The Creator. The created has already recognized The Creator in the formation of this country and Constitution: “The Blessings Of Liberty”. Try to eradicate God, it all falls.

And some wonder why things are getting worse.

 

[stephe1987]

Well, they are already giving condoms to elementary school children in Massachusetts, so give it another 40-50 years and pedophilia will probably be legal, especially if any urge is going to be considered natural from now on. Little girls are menstruating earlier and earlier, maybe the 8- or 10-year-olds will be considered adults (able to consent) in the future.

Re: the drinking age, I think it needs to be higher or not at all. The human brain isn’t even done developing until 25 or 30. On the other hand, if there is no drinking age, teenagers will stop thinking it’s cool to drink and maybe we won’t have the problems with binge drinkers/alcohol poisoning at frat parties anymore.

Polygamy is already accepted in some religions and practiced in some parts of the country. It’s just kept hidden of course, and only the first wife is legally married to the husband. The rest are unofficial and only seen as wives among members of that religion or cult group.

Animal love, well animals can’t sign papers so I don’t think humans will ever be able to marry their pets, but you never know. If any sexual preference is legitimate, why not?

Why not incest? If consenting adults is the requirement, why can’t a brother and sister marry, or a father and daughter? There are at least two cases in the news recently where a father had a baby with his daughter and they seem to think it’s okay because they both consented. In fact, I think one of said “couples” is trying to pass a law so they can get married. Never mind what it might do to the kid, this is the “me age” so people only seem to care about themselves and not their children.

“Marriage” doesn’t mean what it used to mean. Now it just means paperwork, and not even commitment since some people are okay with shacking up, popping out babies, and never get married. They stay together longer than many married couples.

Only men and women have been blessed with the ability to have children and families of their own. Adults with adults, and marriages are intended to expand the family, so incest is no longer needed to populate the Earth. That is God’s plan for humans. Men and women get married to set up a stable home for their children. They courted each other for a while, under supervision, and decided to marry after they went on dates for a while. Then they got married. Divorce wasn’t supposed to happen.

 

[Holly3278]

I personally find it incredibly disgusting that these activist judges can try and rule laws that were passed by a vote unconstitutional. I mean, if you ask me, this law is perfectly in line with the Constitution of the United States of America. I mean, seriously, what is so wrong with it? The United States of America did not have gay “marriage” at all in any state before the year 2000 I believe. In fact, I’d say that we did not have any gay “marriage” in the United States of America before 2005. I am not sure on that one though. According to Wikipedia, the movement of gay rights activists to gain gay “marriage” rights began in the 1970s. This is not surprising. I believe it was either in the 1960s of 1970s when homosexuality was declared to not be a mental disorder. I disagree with this decision of mainstream psychiatry. Homosexuality is most certainly a mental disorder in my opinion. What else could it be? It is objectively disordered and anyone who is in a right state of mind would not be romantically attracted to a person of the same sex. It is as simple as that. Here is the Wikipedia article on gay “marriage” in the United States of America:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

What is next? “Marriage” of humans and animals? Polygamy? Seriously people, this is a slippery slope and we need to insure that we do not continue down this slippery slope. I hope and pray that sometime within the next 5 or 10 years the Supreme Court of the United States would rule that gay “marriage” is unconstitutional and overturn every single law in the United States allowing this abomination.

That said, homosexual persons should not be discriminated against. However, it is not discrimination to deny them that which they were never meant to have. If it was, then the Catholic Church would not also be against both gay “marriage” and discrimination against homosexuals.

We must pray that this nation would not continue down this slippery slope. We must pray that truth and morality would win out in the end.

 

[cyberwolf001]

I’m sorry to hear that.

Sorry, wanted to interject a bit of light hearted humor. Didn’t mean to make you sad Luigi.

In the entire history of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Sometimes it included more than one woman, but it has never, never, never been same sex.

Actually it was common enough in Pagan Europe for Christian Emperors to impose the death penalty on it.

 

[Dale_M]

Do I have a right to kill you? No, I do not. So not all rights are good.

In the same way, we argue that the right to a homosexual marriage is NOT good.

Your first sentence is a non sequitur. If a right doesn’t exist, that doesn’t demonstrate that some rights are not good.

You could argue that gay marriage is not a right. Or you could argue that, say, abortion is a right, but is not good. But the statement in the first part of your first sentence doesn’t prove the conclusion it claims.

But lets look at the abortion is a right, but is immoral argument. Abortion has been ruled as constitutional. However, that doesn’t stop citizens from organizing to persuade persons not to do it. Nor does it stop them from advocating for legislation to curb abortion. Or even pushing for a constitutional amendment which would curb or ban abortion.

It runs against my right of living in an environment where I am forced to recognize a lifestyle that runs contrary to my religious beliefs, and allows an environment where it is taught that such a lifestyle is acceptable.

But such is the nature of a pluralistic democracy. I may not accept the idea of Scientology being a religion, but as long as the lawmakers and courts support the idea, I am required to treat it is such, but only when required by specific situations involving business or legal transactions.

Or, to return to the topic of abortion, we are required to not interfere with a woman as she approaches an abortion clinic. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept it as moral, or try to curb it.

 

[blacktiger057]

Yes, and would the Founding Fathers have defined this “marriage” as between a man and woman or between two “partners?”

or

Put another way, is there any indication from any of the U.S. Founding Fathers that gays and lesbians had a right to participate in this “fundamental right” of marriage, or would their (that is, the guys who wrote the Constitution) definition have been one man and one women.

The Founding Fathers would have also been against inter-racial marriages. So using them as your guide as far is equality is concerned is pretty ignorant.

 

[Dale_M]

Perhaps you have a citation from the nations inception stating that two males or two females have a right to be married then?

Does the US Constitution specifically say that a man and a woman have a right to be married?

 

[OriginalJS]

The battle against same sex marriage is slowly, but inexorably, being lost. Strong rearguard actions will be fought, just as in the civil rights movement of the mid twentieth century, but the end result seems clear. I can’t get too excited about it. The Church has fought against divorce and artificial birth control for years with mixed success. It seems to me that it is a mistake to get too involved with politics of the secular world. Catholics are free to follow church teachings and be in the world but not of the world. The Church is not required to recognize any marriage it doesn’t want to; Catholics are not required to recognize any marriage they don’t want to; just as they don’t have to recognize divorce. True, in the secular world they may have to, and do now, obey laws with which they disagree, but that is as nothing compared to the spiritual life.

 

[OriginalJS]

I keep seeing the argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. A little reading in the Old Testament should put that argument to rest. Check out Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (How many can name the several mothers Jacob’s children?) How about Solomon and his multitudinous wives and concubines? Sorry, folks, but those who advocate plural marriage have some precedent on their side.

 

[scipio337]

I keep seeing the argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. A little reading in the Old Testament should put that argument to rest. Check out Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (How many can name the several mothers Jacob’s children?) How about Solomon and his multitudinous wives and concubines? Sorry, folks, but those who advocate plural marriage have some precedent on their side.

Not so much. See Matthew 19:8. Unless you think Christians are bound by Mosaic law, of course.

blacktiger057:

The Founding Fathers would have also been against inter-racial marriages. So using them as your guide as far is equality is concerned is pretty ignorant.

Given this argument, and the analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage (with Loving v Virginia as precendent):

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States, that it is within Federal authority to strip a religious institution of its tax exempt status when that organizations practices are contrary to established public policy.

In it, Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status, and rightly so, for its interracial dating ban.

My question is, and no supporter of gay marriage has addressed:

Given these legal precedents, what is to prevent the Federal government from stripping the Catholic Church of its 503(c) status for not performing gay marriages??

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I personally find it incredibly disgusting that these activist judges can try and rule laws that were passed by a vote unconstitutional. I mean, if you ask me, this law is perfectly in line with the Constitution of the United States of America. I mean, seriously, what is so wrong with it?

There was no judicial activisim in this case; simply a decision firmly based on existing caselaw and secular reason. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in numerous cases that the State must provide a demonstrable compelling interest in order to constitutionally narrow the application of civil rights. The defendants in this case did not provide one. The reasoning behind the decision is best stated by the judge himself in his ruling:

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. “*t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381 US at 485-486.

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, social disapproval of same-sex relationships, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction. The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.*

 

[kenofken]

Not so much. See Matthew 19:8. Unless you think Christians are bound by Mosaic law, of course.

Given this argument, and the analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage (with Loving v Virginia as precendent):

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States, that it is within Federal authority to strip a religious institution of its tax exempt status when that organizations practices are contrary to established public policy.

In it, Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status, and rightly so, for its interracial dating ban.

My question is, and no supporter of gay marriage has addressed:

Given these legal precedents, what is to prevent the Federal government from stripping the Catholic Church of its 503(c) status for not performing gay marriages??

The feds haven’t gone after the church for its flagrant and persistent violations of the non-profit code which prohibit lobbying and political activities. For that matter, they also haven’t gotten involved in the abuse matters, which easily could have amounted to a RICO prosecution, so it would seem the church is probably safe.

This question hints at the only semi-rational non-religious reason people have for banning gay marriage: pre-emptive war. They figure the gays will return the misery they’ve suffered for so long, so we’d better just keep them in their place as long as possible.

 

[estesbob]

Doesn’t the state sanctioning of divorce put souls at risk as well? I’m assuming that it doesn’t since I never hear any outcry from the bishops or laity about reforming that aspect of our marriage law.

Also, is anybody going to exhibit some anger at George W. Bush for appointing this particular judge? I thought only Democrats appointed activist judges?

I think this is a record-it took 457 posts before someone blamed Bush!

 

[bingbang]

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

LOL…I’m sorry but gay marriage will be legalized across america in the next 10-20 years. You definitely didn’t “win the war.”

 

[scipio337]

The feds haven’t gone after the church for its flagrant and persistent violations of the non-profit code which prohibit lobbying and political activities.

Bare assertion fallacy. The Church must have violated NP code because you say so.

kenofken:

For that matter, they also haven’t gotten involved in the abuse matters, which easily could have amounted to a RICO prosecution, so it would seem the church is probably safe.

Another bare assertion fallacy. I suggest you not depend on the Huffington Post for your political analysis.

kenofken:

This question hints at the only semi-rational non-religious reason people have for banning gay marriage: pre-emptive war. They figure the gays will return the misery they’ve suffered for so long, so we’d better just keep them in their place as long as possible.

Non sequitur.

CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION???

 

[scipio337]

LOL…I’m sorry but gay marriage will be legalized across america in the next 10-20 years. You definitely didn’t “win the war.”

Not if the Supreme Court upholds family law being in the realm of the indivudual states. They’ve thrown out a similar case for “lack of a federal question”.

I wouldn’t be confident.

 

[bingbang]

i agree
every person has the right to marry any other person who is unmarried and of the opposite gender

now we’ve removed one restriction. what’s to say other restrictions would not be lifted in the future? i’m predicting, in order:

1. polygamy
2. pedophilia
3. bestiality

as the next ones to get legalized

hey, if 10 women are okay to get married to the same man, they have that right, right? who are we to say what 11 consenting adults cannot do?

Polygamy is something that could be legalized if people really want to get it legalized. Technically people don’t have to be married but could be living as if they were in polygamous relationships. That is between consenting adults.

Pedophilia and bestiality will never be legalized because they involve a party that cannot make decisions for themselves. What two consenting adults do is different.

 

[bingbang]

Not if the Supreme Court upholds family law being in the realm of the indivudual states. They’ve thrown out a similar case for “lack of a federal question”.

I wouldn’t be confident.

Well if that is the case, every state that isn’t overwhelmingly populated by evangelicals will legalize gay marriage in the next 10-15 years. It is just a matter of time. And I don’t see why you guys really care. You don’t have to recognize it as a marriage just as the church doesn’t recognize all sorts of marriages. So why do you care what the state says is a marriage and what it does not, because obviously the church and many of its followers are quick to call lots of legal marriages invalid. So why not do the same with gay marriages and leave it at that.