Hooray for Equality!
Lets hope it sticks! WOO!!
States are required to recognize the union. It is in the Constitution. Equal representation under law.
I served proudly not for straights, gays, whites, blacks, hispanics, christians, jews, muslims, or atheists. I served to defend the Constitution. And the Constitution defends the people. All the people. Not just the majority.
The Constitution protects the minority from the Majority. The courts are to uphold that. Though they often fail.
What you call marriage in your religion is up to you. What it is called legally should be the same for every couple.
The only restraints? Two words. Consenting Adults. This excludes all of those funny issues. Children, animals.
Equal protection under law. Prop 8 is not equal protection under law, it is just the opposite.
There should never, in any state, be a bill voted on by the people to limit the rights of any people. Rights are just that, rights, not privileges. Any law that decides rights violates said rights.
I served proudly not for straights, gays, whites, blacks, hispanics, christians, jews, muslims, or atheists. I served to defend the Constitution. And the Constitution defends the people. All the people. Not just the majority.
The Constitution protects the minority from the Majority. The courts are to uphold that. Though they often fail.
What you call marriage in your religion is up to you. What it is called legally should be the same for every couple.
The only restraints? Two words. Consenting Adults. This excludes all of those funny issues. Children, animals.
Equal protection under law. Prop 8 is not equal protection under law, it is just the opposite.
There should never, in any state, be a bill voted on by the people to limit the rights of any people. Rights are just that, rights, not privileges. Any law that decides rights violates said rights.
I (Mr.) typically tend to shy away from such discussion, especially in good ol' Utah, however, I could not be happier about this decision. Some of my best friends in CA have been in relationships for years just waiting for the opportunity to have their commitment recognized via the title "marriage".
I sincerely hope that once this moves to the Supreme Court, that body of individuals that is supposed to embody justice and everything this country stands for, stands by the lower courts decision and finally brings equality* to our entire nation.
*At least equality as it relates to this particular issue.
I sincerely hope that once this moves to the Supreme Court, that body of individuals that is supposed to embody justice and everything this country stands for, stands by the lower courts decision and finally brings equality* to our entire nation.
*At least equality as it relates to this particular issue.
URIAH,
Wrong fella. You have the right to liberty in the country. It's right there in the 14th amendment. No state can infringe upon that.
Like Loving v. Virginia (1967),
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
This just shows you and others like you, that we have a fundamental right to freedom/liberty that can't be stepped on by states. We are protected by due process laws that protect us again sex, religion, race etc. discrimination. You can't make laws that protect one gender combination from due process. Because animals other than humans, are not able to give consent or gain citizenship, your logic doesn't apply. The judicial branch protect us from states full of redneck christians trying to us majority vote to pass laws that shit on constitutional rights. Sorry fella.
Wrong fella. You have the right to liberty in the country. It's right there in the 14th amendment. No state can infringe upon that.
Like Loving v. Virginia (1967),"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
This just shows you and others like you, that we have a fundamental right to freedom/liberty that can't be stepped on by states. We are protected by due process laws that protect us again sex, religion, race etc. discrimination. You can't make laws that protect one gender combination from due process. Because animals other than humans, are not able to give consent or gain citizenship, your logic doesn't apply. The judicial branch protect us from states full of redneck christians trying to us majority vote to pass laws that shit on constitutional rights.
Sorry fella.I saw Prop 8 as one group's way of protecting gay couples from experiencing divorce, domestic violence, custody battles, and vacations at the in-laws.
OK, OK, I thought that was damn funny. Before anyone jumps my shit, I too am excited by this ruling.
Mav
OK, OK, I thought that was damn funny. Before anyone jumps my shit, I too am excited by this ruling.
Mav
A SIGN FROM THE MORMON GOD! HAHAHAHA! Watch the video to get what I mean..
http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-demonstrations-expected-salt-lake-city-after-prop-8-ruling,0,5664863.story
http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-demonstrations-expected-salt-lake-city-after-prop-8-ruling,0,5664863.story
(IMHO) My argument is not with the issue, but the mechanics of the case...If same sex couples want to marry, thats no sweat off my nose...More power to them! I cant imagine anything more basic than a commited relationship.
But ONE JUDGE, overturning 70 MILLIION voters I do have a problem with. This is nothing more than a Legislative fiat by an activist judge who should have RECUSED himself from the case for conflict of interest. It circumvents the very constiutional principals you all propose to adore. (but only when it suites YOU otherwise Hey! lets appoint a few more CZARS!) It is a shineing example of once again, an all too powerful central government, saying to its populace, "FUCK YOU!. Were. Going. To. Do. It. Anyway." Real Patriots ought be mad as HELL at this decision! Not nessaraly at the ends, BUT at the MEANS that it was arrived at. Those who applaud this decision, and in the same breath perport to admire or revere the Constitution are SADLY MISENFORMED.
The ends DO NOT justify the means folks! The people of that state spoke loud and clearly...They have a RIGHT to determine their own enviroment. And their (the voters) decision should stand. If a couple doesnt agree with the laws of a particular state, let them MOVE to another. One ought remember in this debate, that Your freedom to "be" you, ALSO includes My freedom to be free FROM you... Food for thought.... Again, my argument is not with the issue, but the mechanics..
But ONE JUDGE, overturning 70 MILLIION voters I do have a problem with. This is nothing more than a Legislative fiat by an activist judge who should have RECUSED himself from the case for conflict of interest. It circumvents the very constiutional principals you all propose to adore. (but only when it suites YOU otherwise Hey! lets appoint a few more CZARS!) It is a shineing example of once again, an all too powerful central government, saying to its populace, "FUCK YOU!. Were. Going. To. Do. It. Anyway." Real Patriots ought be mad as HELL at this decision! Not nessaraly at the ends, BUT at the MEANS that it was arrived at. Those who applaud this decision, and in the same breath perport to admire or revere the Constitution are SADLY MISENFORMED.
The ends DO NOT justify the means folks! The people of that state spoke loud and clearly...They have a RIGHT to determine their own enviroment. And their (the voters) decision should stand. If a couple doesnt agree with the laws of a particular state, let them MOVE to another. One ought remember in this debate, that Your freedom to "be" you, ALSO includes My freedom to be free FROM you... Food for thought.... Again, my argument is not with the issue, but the mechanics..
(IMHO) My argument is not with the issue, but the mechanics of the case...If same sex couples want to marry, thats no sweat off my nose...More power to them! I cant imagine anything more basic than a commited relationship.
But ONE JUDGE, overturning 70 MILLIION voters I do have a problem with. This is nothing more than a Legislative fiat by an activist judge who should have RECUSED himself from the case for conflict of interest. It circumvents the very constiutional principals you all propose to adore. (but only when it suites YOU otherwise Hey! lets appoint a few more CZARS!) It is a shineing example of once again, an all too powerful central government, saying to its populace, "FUCK YOU!. Were. Going. To. Do. It. Anyway." Real Patriots ought be mad as HELL at this decision! Not nessaraly at the ends, BUT at the MEANS that it was arrived at. Those who applaud this decision, and in the same breath perport to admire or revere the Constitution are SADLY MISENFORMED.
The ends DO NOT justify the means folks! The people of that state spoke loud and clearly...They have a RIGHT to determine their own enviroment. And their (the voters) decision should stand. If a couple doesnt agree with the laws of a particular state, let them MOVE to another. One ought remember in this debate, that Your freedom to "be" you, ALSO includes My freedom to be free FROM you... Food for thought.... Again, my argument is not with the issue, but the mechanics..
But ONE JUDGE, overturning 70 MILLIION voters I do have a problem with. This is nothing more than a Legislative fiat by an activist judge who should have RECUSED himself from the case for conflict of interest. It circumvents the very constiutional principals you all propose to adore. (but only when it suites YOU otherwise Hey! lets appoint a few more CZARS!) It is a shineing example of once again, an all too powerful central government, saying to its populace, "FUCK YOU!. Were. Going. To. Do. It. Anyway." Real Patriots ought be mad as HELL at this decision! Not nessaraly at the ends, BUT at the MEANS that it was arrived at. Those who applaud this decision, and in the same breath perport to admire or revere the Constitution are SADLY MISENFORMED.
The ends DO NOT justify the means folks! The people of that state spoke loud and clearly...They have a RIGHT to determine their own enviroment. And their (the voters) decision should stand. If a couple doesnt agree with the laws of a particular state, let them MOVE to another. One ought remember in this debate, that Your freedom to "be" you, ALSO includes My freedom to be free FROM you... Food for thought.... Again, my argument is not with the issue, but the mechanics..
I find TWOARIES2's comment particularly interesting since he has a bisexual spouse and is on a swinger site...as a nation we have no problem with sexual debauchery and women who are "bisexual" as long as it serves the purpose of sexual gratification of the All-mighty Male...but when two consenting adult human beings who love each other and want to share their lives together(and let me add that most gay and lesbian couples are monogamous, complete opposite of the people on this site..which i have no problem with, its just the "pot calling the kettle black" sort of mentality i detest)than it is a crime and should be ruled against, because it doesnt serve some indulgent purpose for U..if you want to be "free" of a group of people than i suggest you leave the planet, because gays &lesbians are all over THIS one and you wont be free of anything. I hope since you are open-minded enough to join a site such as this one, you will eventually become open minded enough to free yourself from this type of homophobic biggot-ish hate TWOARIES.
@TwoAries - I have heard a few people stating that because the Judge is gay he cannot be impartial to the issue of gay marriage. Does that not work both ways? If that is the case, how could a straight Judge possibly be impartial? Also, when you are talking about Human Rights, the voter should not always have the final say
We are both very happy about the dicision. Obviously all judges would have to remove themselves from this issue.. unless they are not gay or straight or married or not married... in other words, no judge could possible find a valid reason to move themselves from this issue. Another thing, how many voted for the proposition has nothing to do with what is constitutional. Obviously, 70 million did not vote for the proposition in California.. there are not even 40 million people in that state!!! the propostion passed around 51% to 49%.. but, none of that matters. The majority is not allowed to removed rights from the minority (that is why our country and our judicial system was started). We are a constitutional democratic republic. We are not a democracy!! George Washington stated that he would never fight for, or be a president of a democracy.. as he is again majority rule!!
Oh well, I am ok with the judges decision, as it does not hurt my marriage at all, and it shows that this country really is for the freedom for all.. not just the things we like. By the way, it is always scary when someone tells people to just move, if they do not like the rules a place sets pertaining to them. That is not freedom, it is force!! is that what women should have done when they could not vote, or what blacks should have done, or many other things that society does to force their morals on others. If you live it Utah.. you better move, as swinging is illegal, pornography is illegal, posted nude things is illegal..look it up!!
Oh well, I am ok with the judges decision, as it does not hurt my marriage at all, and it shows that this country really is for the freedom for all.. not just the things we like. By the way, it is always scary when someone tells people to just move, if they do not like the rules a place sets pertaining to them. That is not freedom, it is force!! is that what women should have done when they could not vote, or what blacks should have done, or many other things that society does to force their morals on others. If you live it Utah.. you better move, as swinging is illegal, pornography is illegal, posted nude things is illegal..look it up!!
One Judge can overturn 70 million votes. The minority needs protection from the majority. And when it comes to rights it is the job of the Judges to preserve our rights, minority and majority. Our rights are rights. They cannot be taken from us. Not by 1 vote. Not by 70 million votes.
And yet too many, especially on the right, are trying to make rights a voteable issue. They are not. And any judge who passes a judgement in favor of the majority afainst the rights of any group is out of line and needs to be removed from his or her possition. Because that judge is not protecting our Constitution. Something every officeholder and member of the military swears to defend above everything else.
As to moving because you don't like it, be it from your state, country, what have you. Go fuck yourself. I served proudly. Not for your ignorance, but for every American. Those that agree and those that dissagree. No one group should ever tell another group who have just as much right to be there "like it or leave it". I ranted about this topic before. Guess what our founding fathers who didn't like it did? They sure as hell didn't leave it. Many layed down their lives. Those that took the "like it" approach were called Loyalists. Loyal to King George.
Not liking it is the American way. We were founded on not liking it. Our laws protect our ability to not like it. freedom of speech, of the press, of (and from) religion.
If you don't like it, speek up. Vote, run for office, fight for change. But I will never tell you to leave. Even when you, or all of Texas, threatens to leave. You have as much right to be here as I do.
And I cannot vote that right away from you. This is not Lord of the Flies. This is the USA. Learn the government you have before assuming to know the government you have.
Independance guy. Marriage has been accepted under the law. Provided tax breaks, assumed property is shared equally. Marriage is registered with city and county courts and is recognized. And must be disolved legally through government.
Marriage is a contract just as buying a home is a contract with a bank. It has legal protections, is registered with the courts, and issues within either is handled by the courts.
Thus if such contracts are allowed by a heterosexual couple, by law, they are to be allowed by a homosexual couple.
Next we need to defeat female topless as unconstitutional, as men can walk around topless.
And yet too many, especially on the right, are trying to make rights a voteable issue. They are not. And any judge who passes a judgement in favor of the majority afainst the rights of any group is out of line and needs to be removed from his or her possition. Because that judge is not protecting our Constitution. Something every officeholder and member of the military swears to defend above everything else.
As to moving because you don't like it, be it from your state, country, what have you. Go fuck yourself. I served proudly. Not for your ignorance, but for every American. Those that agree and those that dissagree. No one group should ever tell another group who have just as much right to be there "like it or leave it". I ranted about this topic before. Guess what our founding fathers who didn't like it did? They sure as hell didn't leave it. Many layed down their lives. Those that took the "like it" approach were called Loyalists. Loyal to King George.
Not liking it is the American way. We were founded on not liking it. Our laws protect our ability to not like it. freedom of speech, of the press, of (and from) religion.
If you don't like it, speek up. Vote, run for office, fight for change. But I will never tell you to leave. Even when you, or all of Texas, threatens to leave. You have as much right to be here as I do.
And I cannot vote that right away from you. This is not Lord of the Flies. This is the USA. Learn the government you have before assuming to know the government you have.
Independance guy. Marriage has been accepted under the law. Provided tax breaks, assumed property is shared equally. Marriage is registered with city and county courts and is recognized. And must be disolved legally through government.
Marriage is a contract just as buying a home is a contract with a bank. It has legal protections, is registered with the courts, and issues within either is handled by the courts.
Thus if such contracts are allowed by a heterosexual couple, by law, they are to be allowed by a homosexual couple.
Next we need to defeat female topless as unconstitutional, as men can walk around topless.
Ill just re state, for a THIRD time, the caviat that UnicornChaser and his/her ILK, somehow couldnt get thru their thick fucking skull....(reading is SO TUFF These days! Whew!) Its NOT the issue, but the mechanics- the political mechanics... thats what I oppose... You accuse Us of hatred, you dont even know us! You dont know who we are, what we do, who our friends are, who we fuck... you know NOTHING about us...Yet YOU accuse us of something ugly... You accuse us of Hypocracy and hatred... When those who do know us know were nothing like that. For the record we've spent thousands of dollars and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles on & to, Rainbow gatherings. ("Duh,,, whats a rainbow gathering?") What? are you a Saul Alinski fan?? Whats next? Oh OH! I KNOW!! Lets call them RACEIST! Go POUND SAND Unicorn... The only thing I hate is a rush to judgement. Namaste~
There is Nothing in the U.S. Constitution defineing marrage as a union between a man and a woman. there is NOTHING in the 14th amendment about the subject either. (the 14th being freequently refered to by judges and lawmakers and laymen alkie as, the object of last resort for winning otherwise untennable Constitutional arguments)
"THOSE POWERES NOT SPECIFICLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES, and TO THE PEOPLE" Visa vi: California, has a RIGHT to define Marrage as THEY see fit for themselves. Im sorry you dont like that. I dont have to like it either.. Without a vote of the people, and that vote adheared to by government, the the decision becomes one issued by DECREE. This is the base of my argument. My argument has nothing to do with prop 8 or gays or price of rice in china except to hold it up as an example current to my premise.... And AGAIN I dont beleive the ENDS, (However rightious / or not) justify the MEANS in how this decision has come down.
There is Nothing in the U.S. Constitution defineing marrage as a union between a man and a woman. there is NOTHING in the 14th amendment about the subject either. (the 14th being freequently refered to by judges and lawmakers and laymen alkie as, the object of last resort for winning otherwise untennable Constitutional arguments)
"THOSE POWERES NOT SPECIFICLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES, and TO THE PEOPLE" Visa vi: California, has a RIGHT to define Marrage as THEY see fit for themselves. Im sorry you dont like that. I dont have to like it either.. Without a vote of the people, and that vote adheared to by government, the the decision becomes one issued by DECREE. This is the base of my argument. My argument has nothing to do with prop 8 or gays or price of rice in china except to hold it up as an example current to my premise.... And AGAIN I dont beleive the ENDS, (However rightious / or not) justify the MEANS in how this decision has come down.
Well said Independance guy!! Ill echo your sentiments in defence of my own. thank you.
You are so right. A state should have the right to decide what marriage means to it. So why did 16 states in 1967 change their laws that banned interacial marriages? Their definitions of marriage was one man and one woman of the same race. These were deemed as an unconstitutional restriction on choice.
State laws cannot impeed on one's rights. No matter how ferverent you are that they should be allowed to.
Dumb, Republican, and backwards is no way to go through life son.
State laws cannot impeed on one's rights. No matter how ferverent you are that they should be allowed to.
Dumb, Republican, and backwards is no way to go through life son.
[quote=OPENDOORFUN]@TwoAries - I have heard a few people stating that because the Judge is gay he cannot be impartial to the issue of gay marriage. Does that not work both ways? If that is the case, how could a straight Judge possibly be impartial? Also, when you are talking about Human Rights, the voter should not always have the final say
And you don't get it. As a premise of religion it has no place in our laws. It is called the seperation of Church and State.
Yet Marriage has been adopted by our state and federal laws strickty as a contract between two adults. therefore legal marriage calls under law, and as such falls under equal protection under law.
Gays are Americans too, and thus deserve equal protection under law. Even illegal aliens deserve equal protections, in cases of robbery, rape, murder, they have the right to be defended and their cases heard.
Your rights don't end because some schmuck thinks they should. They are Rights. Not Privliedges.
CAL. Calling one Marriage and the other Civil Union under law is a "Seperate but Equal" issue. All marriages, legally, need to carry the same name. Marriage or Civil Union.
Yet Marriage has been adopted by our state and federal laws strickty as a contract between two adults. therefore legal marriage calls under law, and as such falls under equal protection under law.
Gays are Americans too, and thus deserve equal protection under law. Even illegal aliens deserve equal protections, in cases of robbery, rape, murder, they have the right to be defended and their cases heard.
Your rights don't end because some schmuck thinks they should. They are Rights. Not Privliedges.
CAL. Calling one Marriage and the other Civil Union under law is a "Seperate but Equal" issue. All marriages, legally, need to carry the same name. Marriage or Civil Union.
sometimes life just seems to short to even comment on something.........
@TwoAries2
twoaries... you said it was not the "issue" but the mechanics... just wanted to make sure that you understand that the mechanics is what was good in this. The mechanics is what allowed a judge to overturn what 8 million people tried to take from others.. the mechanics is what allows many religions to live in this country.. or non-religious people. The mechanics is what I hope continues. The mechanics of not letting large majority rule to pound their view on others.
If today... 100% of the people in a state voted to not let anyone in that state have rifles.. it is the mechanics that would let a rouge judge rule against everyone in that state.. and still allow the ownership of guns!!!!
So.. the mechanics showed itself again and hopefully the mechanics of our system will hold up all the way thru.
If today... 100% of the people in a state voted to not let anyone in that state have rifles.. it is the mechanics that would let a rouge judge rule against everyone in that state.. and still allow the ownership of guns!!!!
So.. the mechanics showed itself again and hopefully the mechanics of our system will hold up all the way thru.
oh... and if marriage is not a right.. than it should be an equal priviledge under law. Otherwise take out all the things which it allows married people to have. hospital visits, health care, inheritance laws, etc. etc. etc..
MADOMA wrote:
twoaries... you said it was not the "issue" but the mechanics... just wanted to make sure that you understand that the mechanics is what was good in this. The mechanics is what allowed a judge to overturn what 8 million people tried to take from others.. the mechanics is what allows many religions to live in this country.. or non-religious people. The mechanics is what I hope continues. The mechanics of not letting large majority rule to pound their view on others. If today... 100% of the people in a state voted to not let anyone in that state have rifles.. it is the mechanics that would let a rouge judge rule against everyone in that state.. and still allow the ownership of guns!!!! So.. the mechanics showed itself again and hopefully the mechanics of our system will hold up all the way thru.
Ok, but how about this? (Metaphore) Ill move into your neighborhood. I work at night, and all my friends work at night too, so every night, just about the time your putting little jonny to bed, me and my friends are driveing up and down the street on loud obnoxious straight piped (but legal) motorcycles and stock cars. we play loud music... we yell at one another... You and your neighbors are loosing sleep by the night. The majority of your neighborhood would like nothing better than to see me move out. AHHHH I say! Whats this Majority rules crap?? Just because you and your neighbors are a majority dosent mean I have to give up my right to life, liberty and MY piursuit of happyness! Im a problem, I make a lot of noise, and I work at night and I dont give a damn about you and your neighbors. Screw you and your majority! I have my own life to live!
QUOTE: " The mechanics is what I hope continues. The mechanics of not letting large majority rule to pound their view on others." Hi neighbor!!!!!
TEQUILAROSE / MIKEANDTIA,
Well said. So nice to know there are open minded, non-judgemental, and loving people in this cold cruel world. Enjoy life.
Well said. So nice to know there are open minded, non-judgemental, and loving people in this cold cruel world. Enjoy life.
Your example fails. There is a noise ordinance. Yelling, loud music, even your motorcycles can, often are, in violation of the law. As your right to be loud violates my right to a quiet setting.
Now one person's right to be gay does not violate your right to be straight. And you can be offended seeing two gay people kissing. That is a personal issue. Just as someone else might be offended by any amount of PDA. PDA is legal, to an extent. No matter how offended you are by it.
The Phelps clan signage is legal, no matter how offensive it is.
The rights of one do not superceed the rights of another. Your music cannot impeed on my TV watching. Unless I go outside my house with my TV and put it right next to your fense where you are enjoying listening to music while doing yard work.
There is a logical limit to when, how our activities infringe on the lives of others. Two gays marrying only mimics our activities, not violates them. So your example fails on many points.
Your persuit of happiness cannot trump my persuit of happiness. Mine cannot trump yours.
Now one person's right to be gay does not violate your right to be straight. And you can be offended seeing two gay people kissing. That is a personal issue. Just as someone else might be offended by any amount of PDA. PDA is legal, to an extent. No matter how offended you are by it.
The Phelps clan signage is legal, no matter how offensive it is.
The rights of one do not superceed the rights of another. Your music cannot impeed on my TV watching. Unless I go outside my house with my TV and put it right next to your fense where you are enjoying listening to music while doing yard work.
There is a logical limit to when, how our activities infringe on the lives of others. Two gays marrying only mimics our activities, not violates them. So your example fails on many points.
Your persuit of happiness cannot trump my persuit of happiness. Mine cannot trump yours.
"Civil dis-obediance, is every mans patriotic responcibility" Tomas Jeferson
Here is a great link to the actual case documentation:
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
1) The state, regarding marriage, should be a governing body to make sure participating parties are are upholding an agreement (contract) and as such we are all protected via the 14th amendment (due process), which no fucking state's people can vote down. It protects us by gender, race, religion etc. So any law made to interrupt your right to enter the contract because of your gender is UNCONSTI-FUCKIN-TUTIONAL!
2) The "sanctity" or spiritual validity of marriage is left up to the individual(s) liberty and their believe system, which is protected under the first Amendment which no fucking state can strike down with a majority vote.
3) Some of you fail to realize that the Federal Constitution prevents states from depriving you of freedom with fucking retarded religion-based morality laws. You have the right to marry who you want because it's all about LIFE,LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS folks!
-Tha Don-
P.S. for all you fucktards that compare human relationships and marriage to that of bestiality saying, "What's to stop a guy from marrying his dog"... Well when you can prove consent from your dog, I say go for it.
"Those that sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
2) The "sanctity" or spiritual validity of marriage is left up to the individual(s) liberty and their believe system, which is protected under the first Amendment which no fucking state can strike down with a majority vote.
3) Some of you fail to realize that the Federal Constitution prevents states from depriving you of freedom with fucking retarded religion-based morality laws. You have the right to marry who you want because it's all about LIFE,LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS folks!
-Tha Don-
P.S. for all you fucktards that compare human relationships and marriage to that of bestiality saying, "What's to stop a guy from marrying his dog"... Well when you can prove consent from your dog, I say go for it.
"Those that sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
Surf,
That's the thing.. Majority votes don't count against constitutionally protected rights. This is why the left can't vote down guns totally. All we have to do is change the word gay to black and we'll see why this law is wrong. People need to shove their fuckin god and his laws up their asses. Stick that in your fuckin pipe and smoke it, rightie! haha
That's the thing.. Majority votes don't count against constitutionally protected rights. This is why the left can't vote down guns totally. All we have to do is change the word gay to black and we'll see why this law is wrong. People need to shove their fuckin god and his laws up their asses. Stick that in your fuckin pipe and smoke it, rightie! haha
MIKEANDTIA, I think I'm in love. Just sayin....
It protects us by gender, race, religion etc. So any law made to interrupt your right to enter the contract because of your gender is UNCONSTI-FUCKIN-TUTIONAL!
Gender is NOT Gay or Straight.
Homosexuals are NOT a protected class, like race, gender, disability, etc, thus your premise is wrong.
That being said, if they wanna be as miserable as the straight people, let them get married ROFLMAO!!!
Gender is NOT Gay or Straight.
Homosexuals are NOT a protected class, like race, gender, disability, etc, thus your premise is wrong.
That being said, if they wanna be as miserable as the straight people, let them get married ROFLMAO!!!
JST you've missed the mark, again.
Nobody, ever stated Homosexuals are a protected class. That is a "STRAWMAN" put up by the NEO-CON TEA BAGGERS to confuse the situation. Please, go back and read Prop.8 again and tell me where you see the statement, "Homosexuals are a protected class". Go ahead, I'll wait...
Never said it did, however, that was the meat of one person's argument.
I would suggest you brush up on your reading skills, then you could see I was making a statement in response to a statement, the statement was NOT related to Prop 8, Prop 8 has no bearing on me, my day, nor my state, I could not care less about it. I was merely pointing out the flawed reasoning posted by another.
JSTJIM72 wrote:
It protects us by gender, race, religion etc. So any law made to interrupt your right to enter the contract because of your gender is UNCONSTI-FUCKIN-TUTIONAL!
Gender is NOT Gay or Straight.
Homosexuals are NOT a protected class, like race, gender, disability, etc, thus your premise is wrong.
That being said, if they wanna be as miserable as the straight people, let them get married ROFLMAO!!!
JSTJIM72,
Gender is saying that a man has just as much right to marry a man as a woman does (or vica versa). Think about it big guy, it'll sink in.
Equality is equality no one is saying protected class. I am saying everyone of legally consenting age, regardless of any trait should be able to marry anyone of their choosing that is also of legal consenting age... GET IT? Apply your morals to your own life and let others do the same. It's called FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not Christian's idea of freedom.I agree Tequila...
Just don't agree with your why
I think the government should butt (pun intended) out of our lives, control the things enumerated in the Constitution, leave the rest to the states, and get the fuck out of our bedrooms. Fuck Bro! What we do is illegal in Florida, the laws here are so backward that it is sickening....
Anyway...........
Back to our regularly scheduled program.
Just don't agree with your why
I think the government should butt (pun intended) out of our lives, control the things enumerated in the Constitution, leave the rest to the states, and get the fuck out of our bedrooms. Fuck Bro! What we do is illegal in Florida, the laws here are so backward that it is sickening....
Anyway...........
Back to our regularly scheduled program.
My question is why is that most conservatives (not all, but most) want government out of people's business UNLESS you're gay and wanna get married, or a female that might want/need an abortion?
I never understood the utter hypocracy.
Can a conservative explain why it's ok for the federal government to make laws for things you don't agree with, but not things you do?
And before someone even says it, I get the religious aspect, but it's still hypocritical.
I never understood the utter hypocracy.
Can a conservative explain why it's ok for the federal government to make laws for things you don't agree with, but not things you do?
And before someone even says it, I get the religious aspect, but it's still hypocritical.
I am a conservative that agree's with the woman's right to choose Abortion, I would prefer they dont make that decision but it is their choice to a point. I dont agree with Government subsidies to pay for their indiscretions however.I also dont agree with planned parenthood's ways of coercion and manipulation of young women in trouble. The same for Gay marriage such as it is, I refuse to pay for someone else life style. With STD's rampant in that lifestyle, it will eventually start to cost all of us a lot of money. JMHO
50-years ago is when the Loving case started, you can be sure there were lots of people thumping bibles and yelling all about State's rights and how the voice of the people should not be subverted by the courts. We look back at it now and wonder how anyone could have been so closed minded and yet here we are fighting the same battle. Marriage is a legal contract as far as the government is involved - it is NOT a religious contract when it comes to the law. Whatever church you belong to can make it into some higher level of sacred this or that and can make all the rules it wants to about who it will marry at the alter. Some may say you must be of the same faith - no problem. Others may have to vow to raise the kids to be followers - go for it. However that is only the church part of the marriage and has zero to do with the government's license and oversight of the legal protections that come with the marriage contract/license. That part of the process should be free and clear of the religious dogma. You don't need a church to be married nor do you need religion.
For the most part the straight couples practicing "serial polygamy" have already made marriage a joke and I doubt the gay movement could do anything more to mess it up. ("Serial Poly" = multiple spouses one after the other which is only different to "normal" polygamy in that "normal" poly is done in parallel form with all the spouses at the same time). I have no idea why you could not have multiple spouses at the same time if we have no problem with those that seem to have a revolving door and a running tab at the marriage license office.
Anyone that thinks of marriage as some long standing sacred custom of love and caring needs to take a bit of time to research the topic. The root of the custom has more to do with land and property rights than it does with love or religion. We have just in recent history put the idea of love into the process. Even with the modern move away from pre-arranged bonds to cement a business or family deal it's hard to take any sacredness in the process too seriously because the biblical line "Until death do you part" has been replaced with "Until you need a lawyer because you are looking for a newer model." It will be great to see what the high court does in this case or any of the other cases that may be used to bring this to the same end as the Loving case did so many years ago.
For the most part the straight couples practicing "serial polygamy" have already made marriage a joke and I doubt the gay movement could do anything more to mess it up. ("Serial Poly" = multiple spouses one after the other which is only different to "normal" polygamy in that "normal" poly is done in parallel form with all the spouses at the same time). I have no idea why you could not have multiple spouses at the same time if we have no problem with those that seem to have a revolving door and a running tab at the marriage license office.
Anyone that thinks of marriage as some long standing sacred custom of love and caring needs to take a bit of time to research the topic. The root of the custom has more to do with land and property rights than it does with love or religion. We have just in recent history put the idea of love into the process. Even with the modern move away from pre-arranged bonds to cement a business or family deal it's hard to take any sacredness in the process too seriously because the biblical line "Until death do you part" has been replaced with "Until you need a lawyer because you are looking for a newer model." It will be great to see what the high court does in this case or any of the other cases that may be used to bring this to the same end as the Loving case did so many years ago.
It's nice to see a conservative with an open mind Freeride. The idea of not wanting to pay for it however is one that is often used but only when directed toward a narrow set of government payments. Should someone that does not eat meat protest against government health inspectors at a meat packing plant? Belong to a church that does not believe in the use of medicine so because of that you should not have to pay for medical research into new drugs? We all pay for things we may not believe in but don't get to say because that is our belief the government can't support it. Having been part of those that stood up to Operation Rescue every weekend for summer when they organized and tried to forcefully close a Women's Health Center that did abortions in Melbourne, Florida I can tell you there is nothing Planned Parenthood could do that could come near the psychological and physical pressure the Anti's used to try to prevent women from having a choice (to include throwing what looked like blood on cars and at those getting out of them to go into the clinic). I'm not too sure what you refer to in your statement about Planned Parenthood and the "manipulation" used but for the most part in my experience of working with the clinic in Melbourne, those that came in knew what they were doing and had thought it out. They had to be sure of their decision to face the the gauntlet of bible thumping, hate filled voices shouting out to them and calling them evil along with threats of eternal damnation and violence (more than one clinic in Florida was bombed and more than one doctor killed back then).