Prop 8 overturned (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Montclair: permit, brick, quality)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Just like Prop 8 wasnt going to fly.
Ahem.

Prop 8 was not a judicial argument. It is a referendum that was passed by people with bigoted ideas.

The supreme court looks at many things when deciding cases.

1. History
2. Consensus
3. Precedent

and a few other things.

there is no argument that the Pro h8ers have put forward that would stand up to that test

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

states rights issue? Like how the Southern states had passed Jim crow laws and laws against interracial marriage? PUHLEASE. They said it was a State's right to decide whether they have slaves or not.

I think you and your ilk are in for a rude awakening once the Supreme Court gets this.

Just prepare yourselves.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I think you and your ilk are in for a rude awakening once the Supreme Court gets this.

Just prepare yourselves.

What you should prepare yourself for is me and my husband walking down the aisle in our matching black suits.

get used to it hunny. Gay is the new black

[Highnlite]

Those of you who disagree with the Judges ruling, have you read the ruling. It is substantative and authoritative.
If you are arguing that the Supreme Court will toss it, yet, you have not read it to determine possible grounds for overturning it, you are just blowing smoke.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

What you should prepare yourself for is me and my husband walking down the aisle in our matching black suits.

get used to it hunny. Gay is the new black

And I wish you all the happiness in the world.

But this issue not about happiness, its not about who we love, its not about that.

If those were the only considerations we wouldnt be having this conversation.

We are talking about the institution of marriage and its origins and purpose. At least, that's what has the majority of Californians hung up.

And I think that if we do what think is the perfect solution by removing marriage from all civil law and making every couple, gay or straight enter into legally binding civil unions with all the rights and privileges then such a referendum would probably pass easily.

See, it gets tricky. I can pontificate all day long but everytime I see a loving Gay couple on the street or wherever going about their everyday lives, I am reminded that we are talking about people's lives and this issue reaches into the very depths of their families and lives.

So I digress. I can't help but smile when I see a happy couple, regardless as to who they are.

Anyway, back to the debate.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Highnlite

Those of you who disagree with the Judges ruling, have you read the ruling. It is substantative and authoritative.
If you are arguing that the Supreme Court will toss it, yet, you have not read it to determine possible grounds for overturning it, you are just blowing smoke.

this is what I am saying. It is so substantive and Authoritative that those in favor of prop 8 have no arguments to depend on at the moment

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Those are corrections to past deviations from what marriage is and what it has always been.

The union of a man and a woman.

Ohhh...those were DEVIATIONS. Not REDEFINITIONS. I see. So, the fact that for years marriage was restricted to one man and one woman of the same race was simply a deviation? Or, that marriage is restricted to one mand and one woman, rather than multiple women...that was a deviation as well?

Child marriage laws...another deviation? Codifying common-law marriages...let me guess, ANOTHER deviation! Am I right?

But two consenting adults of the same gender, THAT is a redefinition? That's not just a correction to a past deviation? That line seems a little...I don't know, blurry. What with the ancient civilizations (Chinese, Roman, Greek, etc.) that had same-sex marriages in their cultures, it seems that limiting matrimonial vows only to opposite-sex couples is a deviation from what had been an established practice for centuries. But I guess not...it's a redefinition!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Ohhh...those were DEVIATIONS. Not REDEFINITIONS. I see. So, the fact that for years marriage was restricted to one man and one woman of the same race was simply a deviation? Or, that marriage is restricted to one mand and one woman, rather than multiple women...that was a deviation as well?

Child marriage laws...another deviation? Codifying common-law marriages...let me guess, ANOTHER deviation! Am I right?

But two consenting adults of the same gender, THAT is a redefinition? That's not just a correction to a past deviation? That line seems a little...I don't know, blurry. What with the ancient civilizations (Chinese, Roman, Greek, etc.) that had same-sex marriages in their cultures, it seems that limiting matrimonial vows only to opposite-sex couples is a deviation from what had been an established practice for centuries. But I guess not...it's a redefinition!

Don't feel like arguing anymore 14thandYou. Been doing it all day here and elsewhere...getting tiresome.

Your points are very well taken. Can I leave it at that?

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

We are talking about the institution of marriage and its origins and purpose.

Considering that many ancient civilizations had same-sex marriage, it would seem the "origins" argument is not exactly on your side.

And as for "purpose"...well, just what *is* the purpose? Procreation? Bummer to all the couples that can't have or don't want children, I suppose. Can't really think of any other purpose that could be proffered that would eliminate same-sex couples from this equation, other than the fact that a bunch of people think it's icky.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

And I wish you all the happiness in the world.

But this issue not about happiness, its not about who we love, its not about that.If those were the only considerations we wouldnt be having this conversation.
We are talking about the institution of marriage and its origins and purpose. At least, that's what has the majority of Californians hung up.

go tell the plaintiffs in Loving v Virginia that the case was not about their happiness (well they are dead now, but still...)

The Instituition of marriage HAS been tested by the courts and the institution FAILED.

If you are not familiar with Loving V Virginia I could give you a run down.

There was this white man who was in love with a black woman. But many states had laws saying their love was unnatural, you can't mix the races. The plaintiffs were even arrested for getting married in another state.

Now you say many states passed laws similar to prop 8, well many states had laws similar to the one the Lovings were fighting. But the court struct it down. The institution of marriage held up after the Loving case, as it will again after this one goes to the SC