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

[rlg94086]

Yep… the question would be “define marriage differently” compared to what?

Marriage, at the time of Loving v Virginia, was the union of a man and a woman. That is the definition under which the “basic right” declaration was made. Unless you can find something from the justices stating that they were broadening the definition, there is absolutely no reason to assume a change in that defnition.

As much as pro-gay-“marriage” advocates get angry at the notion, it would be the same as assuming that marriage could have meant polyamory, adult-minor, incestuous, etc. and therefore gives equal protection to all of those categories. You can’t just change a definition and then take previous rulings and apply it (or at least you shouldn’t be able to).

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, brother. You have offered no evidence in the Constitution to justify your viewpoint. If you have such a citation, please offer it.

Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to show where sexual preference is protected in the Constitution. I can’t show you where it isn’t.

 

[Dale_M]

Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to show where sexual preference is in the Constitution. I can’t show you where it isn’t.

LOL

You are the one claiming that marriage is limited to a man and a woman in the US Constitution. The onus is on you to prove it. So far, you have offered no evidence.

My position is that the US Constitution is silent on the matter.

 

[exoflare]

Again, only if you define marriage differently.

Round and round we go…where do we stop, nobody knows!

Yeah this is why I tend to think people who support any kind of evil now usually do it willingly and not out of ignorance. The aversion to basic facts and attempts to change the subject are evidence enough of that, and with information so readily available today there’s really not much excuse to claim ignorance anyway. There are only so many times a person can deny to your face that the sky is blue while looking up outside and telling you to “prove it” before you realize you’re dealing with a lost cause.

 

[JimG]

I think that the right to marry is a fundamental right.

But a union of two persons of the same sex is not and cannot be a marriage. It is an ontological impossibility.

As to sexual orientation as a basis for non-discrimination, I think this conclusion is inevitable:

If a homosexual orientation deserves equal protection of the law, so does every other sexual orientation.
This is only the beginning.

 

[edwest2]

Oh, yeah. Polygamy will be great for the public coffers. All of those marriage licenses! Imagine the intake for local catering businesses and flower shops! Who else can we get to pay the state protection money? What about pet marriages? Pets would be forbidden to marry until they cough up the cash and get a -]receipt/-] license. It would be all the rage. The trend would sweep the globe.

You guys do realize that this is all a money-making racket, right? Marriage is a natural institution. We don’t need the state to grant us “permission” to marry, as if they were passing out treats to dogs. Aww… we like you. Here’s a marriage license so that you can do what you were going to do anyway. Good boy. Now where’s the money?

That the Catholic Church goes along with this insanity is something that truly grates. Since when do we need government permission to practice the sacraments? What are they going to do if we get married without paying their protection money first? Jail the priest that conducted the ceremony?

Yup. That’s probably what they’ll do once the Church finally gets a backbone and stops participating in this shameless scam. Civil disobedience! March those priests off to jail! We never liked them anyway. They’re all pedophiles, you know. And they’re a bunch of sexists, too!

Uh, there was a time when the State was respectful of Christianity. Our coins have In God We Trust on them.

The Catholic Church is going along with nothing. But because we won’t let a certain group do what they want they call it hate.

God bless,
Ed

 

[GaryTaylor]

How is man + man or woman + woman strengthening marriage?

If the State can create “gay marriage” then why can it not confer all the benefits of marriage on gay couples? Here’s why. They don’t want it. As Ellen Degeneres told John McCain on her show, marriage is what it will be.

I am skeptical that gay marriage equals a committed relationship:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Thats a question of debate and address by CA an NY at the Supreme Court. Which is where this is ultimately headed.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

LOL
You are the one claiming that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. The onus is on you to prove it. So far, you have offered no evidence.

I can’t help you, if you can’t follow logic. We both agree that marriage is nowhere in the Constitution. You’ve made the claim that homosexual relatiohships are protected by the Constitution. You have failed to show where that protection is.

Same-sex attraction is a desire, not a physical attribute. Desires are not a protected class.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Yeah this is why I tend to think people who support any kind of evil now usually do it willingly and not out of ignorance. The aversion to basic facts and attempts to change the subject are evidence enough of that, and with information so readily available today there’s really not much excuse to claim ignorance anyway. There are only so many times a person can deny to your face that the sky is blue while looking up outside and telling you to “prove it” before you realize you’re dealing with a lost cause.

i agree, this usually happens when one has a steady diet of fox news and rush limbaugh

 

[rlg94086]

Yeah this is why I tend to think people who support any kind of evil now usually do it willingly and not out of ignorance. The aversion to basic facts and attempts to change the subject are evidence enough of that, and with information so readily available today there’s really not much excuse to claim ignorance anyway. There are only so many times a person can deny to your face that the sky is blue while looking up outside and telling you to “prove it” before you realize you’re dealing with a lost cause.

I disagree. I think there is a lot of ignorance involved.

 

[DemetriusB]

At least GaryTaylor is honest, it is true that the gays want to marry for the monetary benefits. But in what ways can gays love each other in a “marriage” that they can’t in a civil union? How does restricting gays’ right to marriage also restrict them from having loving relationships?

 

[exoflare]

i agree, this usually happens when one has a steady diet of fox news and rush limbaugh

This person’s got a beef with me now recently for some reason… just ignore her.

 

[edwest2]

GaryTaylor:
It won’t mean anything because some gay couples are already in “ethical nonmonogomous relationships.” They have a husband and a boyfriend.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I disagree. I think there is a lot of ignorance involved.

I think both sides are well informed. One thing is clear: judges, not the people will decide.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

This person’s got a beef with me now recently for some reason… just ignore her.

Anytime someone brings up Fox News and Rush Limbaugh out of the blue, they deserve to be ignored. It’s not even an argument - just a dig.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Congratulations to mlund for nailing it. (I agree with Corki)

For a refreshing change from the usual opinion pieces, see below:

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/05/EDEO1EOV7G.DTL

One part of the article:

Judge Walker’s ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority. Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.

Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads.

Judge Walker’s view is truly a radical rejection of Americans’ rights, our history and our institutions that will only fuel a popular rebellion now taking place against elites who are more interested in remaking American institutions than respecting them.

(etc.)

 

[edwest2]

At least GaryTaylor is honest, it is true that the gays want to marry for the monetary benefits. But in what ways can gays love each other in a “marriage” that they can’t in a civil union? How does restricting gays’ right to marriage also restrict them from having loving relationships?

The “monetary benefits”? Are you joking? The monetary benefits?

God bless,
Ed

 

[DemetriusB]

The “monetary benefits”? Are you joking? The monetary benefits?

God bless,
Ed

What’s the joke? Are there not certain tax breaks married people enjoy that singles don’t?

 

[edwest2]

Congratulations to mlund for nailing it. (I agree with Corki)

For a refreshing change from the usual opinion pieces, see below:

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/05/EDEO1EOV7G.DTL

One part of the article:

(etc.)

Thank you. This is A Social Engineering Project. It is built on force. Voters in California rejected this twice but that obviously meant nothing. Why did they bother to put this on the ballot? If you live in Massachusetts, your kids will be exposed to gay storybooks and the State will force your compliance.

People don’t like to be forced and judges are going beyond their mandate.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Corki]

Since this thread is flying toward the magical number of 1000 posts, I just want to congratulate everyone. This is a very hot topic and we didn’t get the thread closed. (I hope I didn’t jinx it)