Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (Representatives, enemies)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by US-Traveller

The law does not recognize homosexuals as a protected class, and rightfully so.

Actually, the laws in many states do protect citizens based on sexual orientation, and the federal hate crimes law also protects people based on sexual orientation.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice

I wonder if the same people who are against gay marriage would be willing to give up their marriage and benefits?

Of course NOT! Then it is about their "so called rights" (in their words)

If civil unions granted all the rights that married hetero couples have, would gays still be fighting for the word "marriage"? Or would it be a moot point? W

I could care less what gay couples do (get married, get divorced) but I tend to think that would have been an easier road to travel and one less controversial. But not as exciting and crap stirring for those involved.

[AADAD]

Originally Posted by dcsldcd

So a homosexual activist judge told the voters of California that their vote does not mean a thing. How surprising

Just as the voters decided to prohibit a white from marrying a black man. Guess the voters in Alabama share something in common with you.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

I'm not certain how this pertains to my point about the traditional link of marriage to a religious sacrement.

If you wish to update the tax code so that civil unions get the same contractual legal benefits as marriage, fine, do it. But leave marriage (a.k.a. "holy matromony") and the sanctity of that holy union of marriage before God alone....one man, one woman.

If your going by actual tradition don't you mean one man and his property??

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by dcsldcd

So a homosexual activist judge told the voters of California that their vote does not mean a thing. How surprising

lol... Comedy relief.

The voters can decide to revoke the rights of women to vote too, but it would never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by dcsldcd

So a homosexual activist judge told the voters of California that their vote does not mean a thing. How surprising

Same could've been said when we made interracial marriage legal.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker

If civil unions granted all the rights that married hetero couples have, would gays still be fighting for the word "marriage"? Or would it be a moot point? W

I could care less what gay couples do (get married, get divorced) but I tend to think that would have been an easier road to travel and one less controversial. But not as exciting and crap stirring for those involved.

Aside from the fact that many people see civil unions as a second-class marriage, Republicans have repeatedly voted against even civil unions. The governor of Hawaii is a prime example of this.

Same-sex civil unions vetoed by Hawaii governor - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0707-hawaii-veto-20100707,0,3449228.story - broken link)

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

DOMA, ever hear of it?....Federal law prohibits certain rights to be given the married gay couples in the states that recognize it....well that was until a US District court in my home state ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional.

see post #240

[AADAD]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Civil unions are regulated and licensed by the state as well. Why did you choose not to address that and the differences between the two (civil union vs. marriage) in your post? Is it that painful to actually admit that there is traditionally a religious sacrement recognized with marriage?

Easily the most confusing post so far. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Smash255

If your going by actual tradition don't you mean one man and his property??

Yes, I agree. And real traditionalists should also believe that a husband has a right to rape his wife. I don't see how a true conservative could disagree with this.