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.
LOL I guess so. When it come to that sorta stuff...name calling "redneck" "bigot", "homophobe"...whatever...I just laugh and say, hey, have yerself a good one, ya heah? LOL
Back in 1860, I'm sure a lot of white Southerners claimed that the election of Lincoln would lead to anarchy, degradation of morality, and the downfall of society. They were wrong.
Back in 1920, I'm sure a lot of men claimed that giving women the right to vote would lead to anarchy, degradation of morality, and the downfall of society. They were wrong.
Back in 1948, after the California Supreme Court struck down laws barring interracial marriage, I'm sure a lot of Californians claimed that there would be anarchy, degradation of morality, and the downfall of society. They were wrong.
Back in 1960, I'm sure a lot of Protestants claimed that electing an Irish-American Catholic president would lead to anarchy, degradation of morality, and the downfall of society. They were wrong.
Back in 1965, I'm sure a lot of people claimed that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would lead to anarchy, degradation of morality, and the downfall of society. They were wrong.
Today, there again are many people who say the California Supreme Court decision overturning gay marriage bans will lead to anarchy, degradation of morality, and the downfall of society. Sixty years from now, we'll look back and say "Isn't it funny every time society increases freedom, there are always people who come up with the same tired arguments against it!"
A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. That seems to suggest that people need leadership when it come to recognizing basic human rights.
I admit a BAD habit of mine is peeking back in...when I ought be out watchin' the fried chicken and wondering which of the 11 wives I have I want tonight (hey, if homosexual marriages pass the muster...why not polygamy...?).
Ok, to the literal minded...I am joking (in terms of my own lifestyle, but stand solid in terms of if A is OK, why not B..?).
A Gallup Poll in 1958 is supposed to be a point in your favor? Bet if YOU had lived back in that day and time YOU would have been on the forefront of righteous change, wouldn't you?
*pause while I grab a barf bag* Why stop with 1958? Lets' go back to what people thought in 1758. Bet if YOU had lived back then you would have given them racist oppressors an earful, huh? Too bad you weren't around to fill the role of lecturing your own great grandparents as to their evil ways. Bet they would have been awful proud of you. ROFLMAO
OK...I AM here for at least ten more minutes...til the chicken gets done..
If you think being gay is a choice, then you have neglected to do the scientific research or the human research.
Just as people pretend to be straight, some people like Anne Heche have pretended to be gay. Also, sexuality is not a cut and dry issue.
.
I have done some pretty intense research, it is really very conclusive yet quite basic and simple, perhaps you have heard of it, it is called the (Checkyourdrawers )study, basicly you grab the waist band of your underdrawers pull them away from your stomach and look down, if you got the goods, your a man if not, your a woman. Anne Heche was pretending to be a lesbian?
Really, now that is contrary to what a lot of the other self acclaimed experts on the subject on this forum have said, are you sure she is not pretending to be straight? You know I wonder why you never hear heterosexuals say that sexuality is not a cut and dry issue! Conveniant argument. Covers all the bases!
I admit a BAD habit of mine is peeking back in...when I ought be out watchin' the fried chicken and wondering which of the 11 wives I have I want tonight (hey, if homosexual marriages pass the muster...why not polygamy...?).
Ok, to the literal minded...I am joking (in terms of my own lifestyle, but stand solid in terms of if A is OK, why not B..?).
A Gallup Poll in 1958 is supposed to be a point in your favor? Bet if YOU had lived back in that day and time YOU would have been on the forefront of righteous change, wouldn't you?
*pause while I grab a barf bag* Why stop with 1958? Lets' go back to what people thought in 1758. Bet if YOU had lived back then you would have given them racist oppressors an earful, huh? Too bad you weren't around to fill the role of lecturing your own great grandparents as to their evil ways. Bet they would have been awful proud of you. ROFLMAO
OK...I AM here for at least ten more minutes...til the chicken gets done..
Yeah there were people just like you back in 1958. We rolled over them then too. Remember George Wallace, Lester Maddox, et al. Where are they today? Crushed beneath the wheels of liberal change.
Yeah there were people just like you back in 1958. We rolled over them then too. Remember George Wallace, Lester Maddox, et al. Where are they today? Crushed beneath the wheels of liberal change.
*curious* Who is "we"? The EASIEST thing in the world is to sit in righteous judgment of another era.
Slavery? Leaving aside that it has existed since the dawn of time and among all people and races both as slave owners and slaves and all combinations thereof? Welllll, somebody might condemn the Southern United States by asking why didn't the slave-owners just do the right thing and set them free?
As one who has the luxury of examing the question 175 years removed, I would agree, idealistically. BUT...had I lived in day and had to be responsible for the effects of immediate emancipation, it would not have been so simple.
So what I am saying is lets keep it to the immediate. Your breast-beating thunder of what should have been done in another day and age amounts to a stale can of beer.
NOW then, truly outta here for the evening. Y'all have a good one. Enjoyed the discussion/debate!
I have done some pretty intense research, it is really very conclusive yet quite basic and simple, perhaps you have heard of it, it is called the (Checkyourdrawers )study, basicly you grab the waist band of your underdrawers pull them away from your stomach and look down, if you got the goods, your a man if not, your a woman. Anne Heche was pretending to be a lesbian?
Really, now that is contrary to what a lot of the other self acclaimed experts on the subject on this forum have said, are you sure she is not pretending to be straight? You know I wonder why you never hear heterosexuals say that sexuality is not a cut and dry issue! Conveniant argument. Covers all the bases!
Should have put "may have been pretending". I know a few who have done both, but pretending is not quite accurate. I've known straight people who have realized they were gay later in life and gay people that have realized they were straight and straight and gay people who have realized they were bisexual. Also, it is pretty well known that sexuality isn't a "cut and dry" issue.
So in your thought process, sexuality is based on gender? Not consistent with what science shows.
Yeah, I took Govt. 101...part of the requirment to get my major in Political Science...so I will match sheepskins with you...
A word to the wise? Don't go confusing "America" with what prevails in California or Massachusetts.
Judicial Branch? It is there to INTERPET the law...not make it nor overrule the legislative process nor the vote of the people. In even California, the people voted to disallow homosexual marrigage. Is your position that the courts have that authority? If so, hell, abolish the legislature and the petition process, and be honest about it.
Do the people of California have the authority to disallow Christians the right to marriage by vote when their Constitution holds marriage to be a fundamental right? If no, why not?
The Court did not overrule the legislative process- it interpreted the law and the Constitution of the state and found the law at odds with the guarantees to the citizens of California in their own Constitution. The legislative process needs not be abolished- it needs to be used properly. If you want to legislate something that is at odds with the appropriate Constitution then pass an Amendment to that Constitution first. Until then courts have a responsibility to interpret these laws as unconstitutional.
Quote:
Don't drive the argument into the ditch. The fact is, the PEOPLE of California rejected homosexual marriage.
Considering that Californians are entitled to same-sex marriage by their own Constitution as long as opposite-sex marriage is available it is not up to the people, as I understand it, before they change the Constitution to take it upon themselves to simply pass a law barring a group of Californians from exercising a fundamental Constitutional right.
Quote:
No, it isn't. Because homosexual marriage is not something traditionally recognized in any society, anywhere, at any time. It is not as if some previous "right" is being repealed....but that a newly found "right" is being crammed on society in the name of a "right"
Read the opinion.
Quote:
[SIZE=3]Furthermore, the circumstance that the current
California statutes assign a different name for the official
family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted
with the name for the official family relationship of
opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns [*43]
not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but
also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.
In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment
under the latter clause, we first must determine which
standard of review should be applied to the statutory
classification here at issue. Although in most instances
the deferential "rational basis" standard of review is
applicable in determining whether different treatment
accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal
protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard
of review -- "strict scrutiny" -- is applied when the
distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called
"suspect classification" or impinges upon a fundamental
right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with
the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity
of the current statutory scheme
that the applicable
statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of
discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of
sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on
that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless
is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question
properly [*44] must be understood as classifying or
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a
characteristic that we conclude represents -- like gender,
race, and religion -- a constitutionally suspect basis upon
which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the
differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex
[SIZE=3]couple's fundamental interest in having their family
relationship accorded the same respect and dignity
enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
6 As noted below (post, at pp. 12-14), four of the
six actions in this coordination proceeding were
filed by parties (the City and County of San
Francisco
and
same-sex
couples,
and
organizations supporting these parties) who
challenge the constitutional validity of the current
California marriage statutes, and two of the
actions were filed by parties (the Proposition 22
Legal Defense and Education Fund (hereafter
Fund or Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund) and
the
Campaign
for
California
Families
(Campaign)) who maintain that the current
statutes are constitutional. For convenience and
ease of reference, in this opinion we shall refer
collectively to the parties who are challenging the
constitutionality of the marriage statutes as
plaintiffs. [*45] Because the various parties
defending the marriage statutes (the state,
represented by the Attorney General, the
Governor, the Fund, and the Campaign) have
advanced differing legal arguments in support of
the statutes, this opinion generally will refer to
such parties individually. In those instances in
which the opinion refers to the parties defending
the marriage statutes collectively, those parties
will be referred to as defendants.
Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational
basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional
validity of a challenged statutory classification the state
must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be
served by the differential treatment not only is a
constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling
state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not
only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that
compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the
statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the
purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex
and same-sex couples embodied in California's current
marriage statutes -- the interest in retaining the traditional
and [*46] well-established definition of marriage --
cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest
for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
Emphasis mine. Do you disagree with the Court's reasoning? If so, on what basis?
Quote:
You explain? What the heck do you think...that I am going to roll over and play dead because you "explain"? LOL (see again above about "America'}
Earth to you: The people of California spoke on the issue quite a while back. Nine (or whatever) of the Nut (most overruled court in history) overrule it by judicial mandate. Who wins? Millions of people seem to reject homosexual marriage...nine say it is ok and screw (no pun intended) what the former say...
Once again, the people are in no position to simply vote away a suspect class' fundamental right and in CA the right to marriage and the right to equal protection are fundamental Constitutional rights.
Quote:
Legal issues above. Biblical passages? If you truly believe in the authority of the Bible as a source, then quote away and we will discuss it.
How do homosexuals produce offspring other than using artificial insemination?
They already get the benefits as far as kids go, can they not claim them as tax exemptions?
Through surrogates or sperm donors, sometimes artificially inseminated, sometimes not. In either case, it matters none in the marriage discussion because heterosexual couples who resort to the same methods of reproduction are allowed to marry and so are the elderly who cannot reproduce even if they try.
Quote:
Marriage is between one man and one women. End of story.
In your dreams, buddy. Marriage is between any combination of men and women (look up the history of marriage).
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.
Conveniant argument. Covers all the bases!