California high court upholds gay marriage ban

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What is the difference between the love I hold for my husband and love that my sister and her husband share?

This is not the thread to discuss this but bottom line is that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Hell, homosexuality was classified officially as a mental disorder until not long ago when they were pressured to change the classification because of political correctness and NOT because of actual science.

reply to post by AnonymousMoose



If that is true then they need to be brought on par with marriage laws, I do believe that would be fair. I believe in 2005 and in 2007 California made Marriage and Civil unions the same. Except on the federal level due to the fact the feds don’t allow civil unions. My source is only a wiki source so take it with a grain of salt, and I don’t have time to sift through the thousands of goggle links.


en.wikipedia.org...

If California would have put civil unions as equal to marriage on the ballot, it wouldv'e been a unanimous yes. But they had to say marriage.

For the others in this post, I voted Libertarian the last election. My guy lost to a majority. Does that give me the right to contest the election because I think Obama is bad for this country?
My pursuit of happiness has been hampered because Obama is now in the White House.

I think I gotta case!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Then get your people (not meant derragatory, by the way) into office!

What rights? Where in the Constitution is the right to marriage? It is not there, therefore, it is up to the state to decide.

If you do not like it, move to state that sympathizes with you.

That is the whole point of how the system works!

THE PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY OCCUR WHEN THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IS IMPOSED OVER THE MAJORITY WHO DO NOT AGREE.

reply to post by MillionEyedMask


You may be right but it still stands the majority of Californians and possible even Americans view marriage as between one man and one woman... Regardless, No one put the will of the people should nullify that, not liberal courts or liberal legislative governments.


And who is to say that if a gay marriage bill was to pass federally that other groups who are not one man and one women would chime in for there "civil rights"?

So if I manage to get a majority together can I take away the right for people of different races to marry, or can I enforce rules where certain groups can't use the same public facilities of other groups, or that certain groups aren't allowed to vote? Where is the line here?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Quite right.

Unfortunately, it seems Americans here fail to understand not only their own REPUBLICAN system, but the notion of democracy itself.

Modern Democracy does not encompass the sparing and select use of plebiscites and referenda to decide issues only affecting a small minority; issues which the vast majority have no understanding of or logical and reasonable recourse against.

We're not in Athens; you can't just pull up the velvet rope and shove everybody up on the Pnyx.

Democracy in its modern incarnation relies on the candour of ELECTED representatives and the adherence to their duty; which is to cater to the needs of the people in their custody, NOT JUST those who voted for them/are likely to vote for them.

Referenda are to be put to the people ONLY when a piece of legislation would mean substantial constitutional reform affecting the lives of the entire demos. FOR INSTANCE; European countries SHOULD BE ALLOWED a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Whereas the CALIFORNIAN PUBLIC is NOT democratically entitled to a referendum on the rights of homosexuals to marry. That is an issue that should be decided by the courts and elected representatives.

By the edicts of the people here, slavery would never have been abolished. Libertarianism? It only works up to a point...

Basically... Arnold pussied out and say "WAI DONT YOO DESAAYYDD??". What a useless tit.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Then get your people (not meant derragatory, by the way) into office!

What rights? Where in the Constitution is the right to marriage? It is not there, therefore, it is up to the state to decide.

If you do not like it, move to state that sympathizes with you.

That is the whole point of how the system works!

THE PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY OCCUR WHEN THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IS IMPOSED OVER THE MAJORITY WHO DO NOT AGREE.

Sorry to be off topic for a moment but I just got the biggest kick out of your signature line. Can I have a t-shirt made with that saying?

Back to topic, do those of you that ar gay want it to be called marriage, or do you just want the same rights?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What is the difference between the love I hold for my husband and love that my sister and her husband share?

you need a basic human biology lesson?
the majority of people feel a preference for a mother/father biological children family unit. they offer extra legal protections to the people most likely to achieve this arrangement. this is a choice by the people.

weather you agree or disagree with this idea is up to you but your opinion is not the final word. other people have their opinions, majority opinion wins. we all have to extend this privilege to gay people, we should all be allowed to have a say.

If they don't want to legalize "marriage", then just make the civil unions equal in the eyes of the law to a marriage.

why should that be the case, what entitles gay people to this legal protection?

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Then get your people (not meant derragatory, by the way) into office!

What rights? Where in the Constitution is the right to marriage? It is not there, therefore, it is up to the state to decide.

If you do not like it, move to state that sympathizes with you.

That is the whole point of how the system works!

THE PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY OCCUR WHEN THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IS IMPOSED OVER THE MAJORITY WHO DO NOT AGREE.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'YOUR PEOPLE' lol just messin.
But this is true, as a constitutional republic, certain laws and even rights are left up to the states. Hell several states were founded as different religious colonies, if you didn't like catholicism, move to the quaker colony or the protestant colony. I wish to move out of California, to a more gun friendly state, but my girlfriend won't let me

reply to post by WhatTheory


I'm sorry but that was not the intent of my post. That's what the argument comes down to. There's obviously something wrong with that notion if people wont' allow it to happen.

And simply because homosexuality was "listed" as a mental disorder does not mean it was. It was placed originally on the list out of fear of the unknown and lack of information, NOT actual science either.

~Keeper

reply to post by WhatTheory


Are you living in the effing dark ages? Seriously, this is ludicrous. Relying on the past classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is THE SAME THING as relying on political correctness to define it as normal. SAYING SOMETHING IS SO DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Forgive the caps, but it seems necessary.

Some dudes like other dudes. Get over it. It's been this way for thousands of years and it's not going to change.

BTW, I agree with you that for the most part political correctness is crap, but this isn't actually a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of societal maturity and respect for those who are different from you. By your logic you might as well claim that being black is a pigmentation disorder.

Number one, the bible has NOTHING to do with this at all, this is a legal issue! I am so tired of xians crying about their bibles and the restrictions that are placed upon it's followers. We are not all followers of the old texts, come into this century please!

As far as the majority rule thing....if we had followed the majority there would have been no integration, Jim Crow laws would still be standing and lynching would still be just fine with the good old boys (well it still likely is but they go to prison for it now). Since when did laws get made by popular vote? I though we had legislators to legislate????

Shame on California's court. At least they allowed the marriages performed to stand, how big of them.

One more thought, I could care less if a person married 10 wives, as long as they could support them it would be their business. It may be a nice tidy way to legitimize all the cheating and infidelity that goes on these days. Since all of the xians are so concerned about the morality issue!

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


I doubt that in American would agree to strip any one group of people of there right as defined in the constitution. You can pander to every group in America you have to have a set of rules that everyone has to play by.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What is the difference between the love I hold for my husband and love that my sister and her husband share?

you need a basic human biology lesson?
the majority of people feel a preference for a mother/father biological children family unit. they offer extra legal protections to the people most likely to achieve this arrangement. this is a choice by the people.

weather you agree or disagree with this idea is up to you but your opinion is not the final word. other people have their opinions, majority opinion wins. we all have to extend this privilege to gay people, we should all be allowed to have a say.

If they don't want to legalize "marriage", then just make the civil unions equal in the eyes of the law to a marriage.

why should that be the case, what entitles gay people to this legal protection?

What entitles everybody else to that right? Why should one group of people not be allowed the same thing as the others? Seems to be a matter of elitism or something. People have such a problem with change, it's ridiculous.

No wonder Obama can't get anything done .

And furthermore, I understand my word is not final, there are obviously other views and opinions that are just as valid as my own. I never claimed I had the "right" answer. I have the sensible one.

There is no reason for it NOT to happen. What would be the reprocussions? How would this affect ANYBODY else but gay people?

~Keeper

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
what entitles gay people to this legal protection?

Uh... the fact that they're people?

reply to post by WhatTheory


I dont see homosexuality has a mental disorder but more has a choice. The choose to be gay thats there right and there choice.

The greatest vindication of the 'pro-gay' viewpoint seems to be the candid inability of the conservative opposition to spell, or furthermore attempt to string a sentence together.

This "Will of the People" is a nonsense. There should never have been a referendum over an issue over which 'the people' have an unavowed ignorance. If ANYTHING, there should have been at LEAST been a preliminary 'think tank' conducted by informed and relevant parties.

The Hoi Polloi should keep their noses out of other peoples' business. If I held a referendum to brand Islam illegal, I'm fairly sure the 'Will of the people' would be right behind me. Does it make that right?

People are cretins. The only issues that should be put to referenda are those that affect the personal liberties of all citizens. 'Gay marriage' should not be an issue. What low ilk of selfish imbecile would disagree that man should be allowed to couple as he wills? Surely THAT was the purpose of separating Church and State...?

Oh, and TRY to understand. This is not a 'special right' for gays. This is a liberty extended to ALL citizens to marry someone irrespective of gender... DUH :/

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

reply to post by redhead57


No shame on you for trying to derail the process of our republic, Last time I checked the civil rights movement had an actual reason to it. Millions of Black Americans were being treated very wrong. To compare the right to vote and to be equal to gays wanting marriage isn’t right at all.

reply to post by FMLuder


Hear hear! Finally a voice of reason, and an eloquent one at that! Thank you a million times for raising the level of discourse above indignant grunting.