Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason government is in marriage is to provide a secure and committed environment for the rearing of children.
That's nice.
That still applies to homosexuals, by the by.
Just because they prefer different playtoys than heteros doesn't mean that their fun parts don't work.
Newsflash:
HOmosexuals still have kids. Either by adoption or by artificial insemination, or by previous relationships with women/men before they realized that they were gay.
It is truly a shame that homosexuals and Latinos continue to try to abuse amendments and legislation to advance their agenda that were put into place in order to prevent discrimination against African-Americans.
It is truly a shame that people believe that legislation put in place to prevent discrimination against African-Americans should not apply to homosexuals and Latinos.
How many people voted yes on prop 8. About 7 million.
The population of California is approximately 36,457,549.
That's about 19% percent of the total population of the
state. I hardly call that the voice of the people, but a
vote of a select group (mostly religious) that was infiltrated with monies from outside CA to run a hate campaign.
polly while cali might have 36 million as a total population...their total REGISTERED VOTERS is 15,810,412....
I don't think a homosexual judge can rule on Prop 8 because the case stands to benefit homosexuals. During a jury selection for trial an attorney will dismiss anyone who might have a bias against their client. Why wouldn't the same be true in the case of a judge.
Knowing that the judge who made the decision is a homosexual, I am not surprised at his ruling.
This is one of the most stupid things I have seen in this thread and that says a lot.
By your logic, the judge couldn't have been straight or Christian either. In fact, we could only have cases decided by cyborg judges that had not been built or programmed by people that were neither gay or straight.
The reason government is in marriage is to provide a secure and committed environment for the rearing of children. Different tax exemptions depending on the amount of children, etc. back up this point. The government has felt that it had a role in accommodating and encouraging this arrangement. Marriage is not a fundamental right, no where in the constitution does it call for marriage as a fundamental right, the discretion has been left up to the states to determine their own marriage laws. It is truly a shame that homosexuals and Latinos continue to try to abuse amendments and legislation to advance their agenda that were put into place in order to prevent discrimination against African-Americans.
My long term partner and I (both female) are raising our 3 children.
Please tell me why you think a male/female couple with 3 children should be provided with a secure and committed environment and NOT our family?
Don't bother with the two homosexuals can't "produce children" argument, as I have a "biological" daughter and my partner has two. We are no different to two people with children from a previous marriage, remarrying and blending their family.
Unbelievable. Needs to be overturned/successfully appealed.
Conflict of interest big-time.
Exactly. Gay people have a tendency to believe that they were "born that way." There is not evidence to back this up, however there is evidence to back up that there is innate sexuality that is predisposed toward heterosexuality. Judge Walker is trying to make up rights. There is no right to marriage in the Federal Constitution. States have been given the discretion to make up marriage law. Homosexuality is not a protected class, whereas race is, and they are trying to use the equal protections clause to justify the ruling, but the EPC was designed to prevent "black codes" and other discrimination against former slaves and African-Americans. It is a shame that the left-wing is trying to use our courts to advance their agenda.
The reason government is in marriage is to provide a secure and committed environment for the rearing of children. Different tax exemptions depending on the amount of children, etc. back up this point. The government has felt that it had a role in accommodating and encouraging this arrangement. Marriage is not a fundamental right, no where in the constitution does it call for marriage as a fundamental right, the discretion has been left up to the states to determine their own marriage laws. It is truly a shame that homosexuals and Latinos continue to try to abuse amendments and legislation to advance their agenda that were put into place in order to prevent discrimination against African-Americans.
uhh, no....goverment has been in marriage for millenia. I'm sure in medieval europe besides being married in a Church, you had to be married in front of a King's representative. It was about property and money. If you were a lower class person you were bascially the servant of the manor-lord, and so was your wife, so to would be your children. there was a legitimate reason for the state/kingdom/duchy to control marriage.
A secure and committed environment for rearing children....hear comes the 52% divorce rate stat I was talking about. Being the child of divorced parents it's the most emotionally disruptive process ever...if the state as you say had any interest in providing me a secure environment they wouldn't have allowed my parents to get divorced. So you're point holds no water at all.
It was also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that gay couples raise children with the same intensity, love and caring as hetero couples. Children of gay marriages are just as equally adjusted. Yet another hole in your argument.
Blaming minorites does nothing except prove you're the "B" word. But thanks for keeping it up. I needed a good mental excercise this afternoon. But lets try to make it more challenging the next time.
While it may be fine to vote on whether you want a
particular type of person to be in your private club, you
have no right to ask any court to disallow public rights to a select group, simply because you or your group do not approve of them. The fact that Prop 8 was able to get on a ballot in the first place - still perplexes me. But then, the law gives you the freedom to do so. What the law doesn't allow you to do is discriminate.
why do we allow the single people to be discriminated against, by denying them the same bennies as 'married' people
allowing marriage and its bennies is discrimination against single people
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
