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

[TXboomerang]

1. If the conservative agenda is to shrink the size of government and get them out of our lives as much as possible, why in the world are so many conservatives hell bent on keeping government involved here?

As a conservative myself, I don't think they should be involved in marriage at all. Let heteros do whatever they want to do and let homos do what they want to do. Government has plenty of other things that are more important they could be worried with.

2. If a the majority of citizens in a state voted against the right to own a handgun, would you still think the will of the majority should be allowed?

I have a feeling conservatives would be absolutely outraged (and justifiably so) if a state even considered putting a handgun ban on a ballot. The topic should not be about how many people voted against gay marriage. The topic should be whether or not government should be big enough to dictate the details of social relationships. To say government should be doing that is to support bigger government. I oppose big government, so I oppose their involvement in the entire institution of marriage. It should be private.

[truthsayer2]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

And to counter the inevitable argument that 'marriage is a privilege, not a right', the Constitution, via the 14th amendment, also guarantees equality in the dispersion of privileges. Any state (and the people of such state) that wishes to deny privileges to any person or group of people had better have a damned good argument showing a 'state interest' in that denial. In this case, the state and the people have failed in their argument.

so therefore giving a married person a privilege, while not giving that SAME PRIVILEGE to an unmarried person is therefore discriminatory

the marriage BENNIES are discriminatory....period

marriage...or a commitment is a PERSONAL THING, not a state or federal GOVERNMENT think

life liberty and the persuit of happyness should NEVER be denied TO ANYONE...why should we DISCRIMINATE by ALLOWING ANYONE to marry (under the government)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

It would seem to be quite a conundrum for gays who call themselves conservatives or Republicans. They're associated with a philosophy and a political party that is obviously not gay-friendly.

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by bettyboopster

Homosexuals like to refer to themselves as minorities, and I'm glad they still are. But so are child porn addicts. Let's keep it that way. It is harmless, though? There is nothing harmless about it. Inform youself.

Originally Posted by stan4

I'm glad super-ignorant people who post things like this are a minority, too. "Inform yourself"? Ironic considering the ignorance of this post.

Originally Posted by bettyboopster

That's all ya got? Name-calling? Who's ignorant?

Based on your first post above, I would say that you are. Comparing homosexuality to pornography is ignorant. Saying that there is 'nothing harmless' about homosexuality is ignorant. So I will say that I believe it is YOU who should 'inform yourself' because you obviously have no knowledge of the subject. (That, BTW, is the definition of ignorance - having no knowledge of a subject.)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Langlen

A: Appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Making your own meanings again? I am not asking you to take my word for it. What I stated is simply a fact of the definition. Do you dispute it? then do so, but your claim of an appeal to authority is yet again, another misuse of a word.

Originally Posted by Langlen

B: Definitions change over history. Language is not static.

Yes they do, but this is not a case of it "changing over time" as this is a minority making a demand for a change at the objection of the majority. It is also not simply an idiom that has over long term found its way into common realms and accepted.

Also, we are talking about legal definition, to which social idioms and random change of meaning is not applicable. It is very specific, very detailed and relevant to its meaning. Legal realms don't document with dude, homie, sup, coolio, for shizzle. They use appropriate language that properly defines a point in order to avoid confusion. Otherwise, if we let people change the meaning of words at the drop of a hat, we create a society of idiots who can't seem to figure out how to properly communicate.

Originally Posted by Langlen

Yes you do. That's why laws aren't writ in stone.

Well if you say so, I guess this settles that! /boggle

Originally Posted by Langlen

You'd have somewhat of a point if civil unions had all the same protections and privileges as marriage.

That doesn't contest the point. Maybe look into civil unions affording the same protections? In fact there are some states to which the changes to them have been made nearly the same minus a couple of positions, which also could be contested and changed. Better to thumb ones nose at the majority and tell them the a well known definition is going to be changed! That will work!

Originally Posted by Langlen

According to one country, maybe. Many societies disagree with this sentiment, however.

Because they changed the meaning? Or are you contesting historically and relevant to the definition? You didn't contest anything here, just waved it off.

Originally Posted by Langlen

You keep on going on and on about "historical relevance" like it's not a logical fallacy and like it's the first time in history that homosexuals are being wed.

Please, inform us all of detailed and vast history of homosexual weddings. We will wait.

[ditchlights]

Everybody knows that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason the APA removed that classification in 1973 was to please pro-homosexual political activists, not to be in line with science. To argue differently would be an open admittance that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Since gays vehemently deny that stance, we'll stick with the original diagnosis.

Before you go bashing and calling me a bible thumping neocon, remind yourself that Christians believe that all homosexuality is a learned behavior. I recognize that it is a mental deficiency acquired in the womb before birth. Saying that gays should not be allowed to wed would be identical to saying that the mentally retarded cannot marry. I personally believe that that would be unconstitutional.

But that does not mean I am in favor of it.

[truthsayer2]

hard to answer in one sound bite

but

because the GOVERNMENT is ALREADY TOO INVOLVED with it being the licensor to the licencee on permission to marry

why is the government in it AT ALL.... I dont want the government in it at all...I dont want the government telling me I can or can marry by boyfriend or my gorlfriend or both....I dont want to hve to pay a PENANCE (fee/tax) to have permission from the government to get married.....I dont want the govermnent giving benefits that suit one group (married), but dont give to the othergroup(unmarried)

why does the GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST UNMARRIED perple by not giving them and denying them the benefits, and PRIVILAGES of marriage

why should a 'married' couple get a tax break,... when a UNMARRIED couple who have been together for 30 years cant???....its discriminatory


get the government COMPLETELY out of the marriage business

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

And secondly, the southern legislatures had been completely dismissed and replaced by military rule under a military governor, overseen by the secretary of war, who Andrew Johnson tried to remove from office(which is within his power as head of the executive branch), which the radical congress opposed and had reaffirmed, then attempted to try Andrew Johnson for impeachment, but failed.

Most of the southern states citizens were barred from admission into the constitutional conventions. As Congress passed one reconstruction act after another that limited the southern governments, imposed demands on said governments, and created new rules for passage of constitutional amendments(all of which were unconstitutional).

Lastly, the 14th amendment would have never been adopted, if it had not been for the supposed ratifications by the southern states. But how could these southern states ratify an amendment if they were not yet considered states?

You argument is ridiculous and without merit. Your real argument should be "It is not unconstitutional because it was the right thing to do". That at least would be a case founded on truth.

Fact 3/4 of the states ratified the Amendment. That is a COLD HARD FACT. Period. Enough conspiracy, enough racism, enough bulls***.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

It would seem to be quite a conundrum for gays who call themselves conservatives or Republicans. They're associated with a philosophy and a political party that is obviously not gay-friendly.

The thing is, to me anyway, it shouldn't even matter what a person thinks about gay marriage or homosexuality in order to come up with a stance that is consistent with conservative/smaller government. Smaller government means not allowing the government to run our lives. Telling us who can and can't get married is telling us how we can run our lives. That is not the goverment's job.

But this is really the problem in the Republican party. The social conservatives demand big government on many social issues and then say they hate big government. It doesn't work that way.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

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.

Should we have made sure that every judge who ruled in the case of Loving V Virginia never had an inter-racial relationship?? Should we make sure women can't oversee cases that someway involve equal women's rights??

That argument is insane....