Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (versus, guns)
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.
It is because guns are rights. They are in the Constitution. It will never be put up for vote because of that while nothing is mentioned about gay marriage in the Constitution.
A lot of conservatives are into religion. That is another reason why. There is no logic behind not letting gays and lesbians marry but because many people believe in fairy tales, it is putting this country behind.
"There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell,head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights...
That's like David Duke saying the Klan isn't a racist organization.
Why the hell didn't the guy recuse himself?
Oh, that's right. Then he couldn't rule in his own favor.
Ahh yes that s exactly the same thing.... Why don't we ban women from ruling in cases that deal with women's rights while we are at it.....
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.
Educated people are generally informed about homosexuality already, so since you supposedly have information that contradicts that, why don't you inform us about your knowledge?
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.
Read an NRA magazine. The California house did pass a law prohibiting the carrying of handguns openly in public loaded or not. They also passed a law to register long guns with the police.
Judges should not legislate from the bench. When the majority speaks someone should listen to them. When the Maine legislature and governor wrote a gay marriage law against the will of the voting public they were slapped down in a referendum. Many people who may have voted FOR gay marriage took out their ire on the legislature and governor passing a gay marriage law despite the fact it lost in two earlier referendum votes. Maine is very liberal but they do not believe the will of the voting public should be ignored by their elected officials. That goes for activist ignorant judges as well.
The only reason the APA removed that classification in 1973 was to please pro-homosexual political activists, not to be in line with science.
This is a very old lie that's been repeated by social Neanderthals for decades. It's based on a conspiracy theory, and like all conspiracy theories, there's no proof to back it up, and therefore, it's a crock of crap.
All these untrained laymen armchair lawyers pontificating in this thread is sad to see. Everyone seems to think they're an expert even if they don't know jack cheese.
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?
You have it backwards..
Conservatives want to shrink the size of the FEDERAL government.. states by design have the authority to write seperate legislation and you have the right to move to a state that supports your standards and ideology.. Its liberals getting government involved, by asking that the federal government over rule a states wishes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang
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.
I agree.. but by the design of the tax code they are involved. Seperate the tax code and get the federal government completely out of the marriage business.. But that isnt whats being asked..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang
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?
Regions do have the authority to vote against owning a handgun.. Check out Washington DC for example.. We also remove the authority to own a gun for convicted criminals, carry one in schools etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang
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.
I wouldnt be.. The Constitution regulates the FEDERAL government.. not states.. and like stated above, Washington DC already bans handgun carrying.. I wouldnt live in a state that banned gun possession, but thats a personal choice..
You're still spouting outdated concepts as if they have some sort of relevance.
And you are still failing to defend your point. According to you, times change, so your position is valid.
Congrats, you just made an invalid argument!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen
Which is why homosexual marriage has happened before in history, correct?
Go ahead, detail this history for us. I am sure it is rich and follows a long family line of descendants and practices... oh wait... guess not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen
The majority can still be wrong.
Such as the fact that majority cannot vote to oppress a minority.
It's happened before, and it happened again.
So it is oppressing to not change the meaning of a word to fit a minorities demand? I mean, considering that the purpose of language is to serve proper communication and understanding between people, it seems kind of odd that for the majority to define it as such, that they are oppressing. I mean, after all, if we defined everything based on what the minority thought, most of us would have to follow the minority around trying to learn their special little word changes. The minority in matters of definition is not a constitutional protection. Sorry, they don't get to push their silly ignorant interpretations of the meaning of words on to the masses.
Strengthen Civil unions, serve an actual purpose that will produce a rational result.
But it was never about that in the first place. Its about forced acceptance. Narcissistic indeed.
I think we are done. You aren't discussing as much as you are simply "telling me how it is going to be". We will see about that. The minority can't oppress the majority either, btw.
If that's your logic, then straight judges should recuse themselves too. After all, allowing same-sex marriage supposedly will affect opposite-sex marriages and society at large.
Going further: Ginsburg should recuse herself from all cases involving Jews or religious minorities; Scalia should recuse himself from cases involving Italian-Americans; Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving racial minorities, etc.
It is because guns are rights. They are in the Constitution. It will never be put up for vote because of that while nothing is mentioned about gay marriage in the Constitution.
A lot of conservatives are into religion. That is another reason why. There is no logic behind not letting gays and lesbians marry but because many people believe in fairy tales, it is putting this country behind.
Marriage is not in the constitution ANYWHERE, so I do not see why conservatives think government should regulate marriage. Well, I know why, it is religion mostly. But I have yet to see any conservative give a sound reason why a person who believes in small government should support the government telling people what they can and can't do socially as long as it does not cause harm to another.
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.
