Another win for marriage equality

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.

Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Idiotic comment. If the amendment passes, gay marriage discrimination will occur, period.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Robor
Good. :thumbsup:

That said, I think this thread is going to spin out of control soon.

Indubitably. Wait till Atreus gets here and asks why Paterson won't also recognize polygamy

Personally I am waiting for Butterboybean to show up.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I believe in God but I don't care if gays marry. It is not hurting me in ny shape. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all sins were looked up the same by God. So how can someone single out being gay above other things, like being judgmental like a majority of self-proclaimed Chistians are.

To be fair, if gay were a 'sin', I can see the people who believe that voting against it. They pass laws against theft and other 'sins', too.

But the point is, that I think they're wrong, that homosexuality is a condition, not a 'sin', and that they are in need of changing their views to stop being tyrants harming innocent people.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?
   
2. Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?
   
3. Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

Or are you just venting as a blowhard bigot? :roll:

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.

Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Idiotic comment. If the amendment passes, gay marriage discrimination will occur, period.

And if the passed amendment is overruled by the courts, judcial activism will have occurred again, period.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

1. 
   
   I dont! Its what they do in their PUBLIC lives that I'm against (marriage)
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

   
   Civil unions are fine with me, not gay marriage.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

The United States Constitution does. By allowing me to vote on issues like this one.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Or are you just venting as a blowhard bigot? :roll:

Not at all, but very mature of you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Another win for marriage equality

This makes me wonder what our next step forward for marriage will be in the name of "progress". Will it by polygamy? Will it be allowing people to marry their pets? How about Marrying your computer?

Polygamy is already allowed heh. Pets/Computers are not people nor do they have the same rights as people. Anything else?

Polygamy is not allowed, that I know of.

But dont the people wanting to marry the pets/computers have the same rights as everyone else?

Since it seems you are unaware, pets and computers are not persons, so they are unable to enter into a marriage contract.

But I'm pretty sure you're a Christian, so it would make sense that you were ignorant of such a plain fact.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

1. 
   
   I dont! Its what they do in their PUBLIC lives that I'm against (marriage)
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

   
   Civil unions are fine with me, not gay marriage.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

The United States Constitution does. By allowing me to vote on issues like this one.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Or are you just venting as a blowhard bigot? :roll:

Not at all, but very mature of you.

Not a single point of substance here. Two people getting married is part of their "public" lives?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Another win for marriage equality

This makes me wonder what our next step forward for marriage will be in the name of "progress". Will it by polygamy? Will it be allowing people to marry their pets? How about Marrying your computer?

Polygamy is already allowed heh. Pets/Computers are not people nor do they have the same rights as people. Anything else?

Polygamy is not allowed, that I know of.

But dont the people wanting to marry the pets/computers have the same rights as everyone else?

Be careful, that slope is mighty slippery and I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

I wasn't aware pets and computers could be consenting adults, and were afforded the same rights as people. Please, tell me more about marrying animals and electronics... :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

1. 
   
   I dont! Its what they do in their PUBLIC lives that I'm against (marriage)

1. 
   
   Marriage is a creature of the state that grants specific legal rights, benefits and responsiblities under the civil laws. As such, gays have as much right to enjoy those rights, benefits and responsibilities as straight couples.
   
   If the only reason you would deny those rights and benefits to them is because YOU don't like what THEY do, you are indeed a freaking BIGOT! :thumbsdown:
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   
   [*]Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

   
   Civil unions are fine with me, not gay marriage.

   
   You can call it "marriage" "civil union" or "Fred's three legged dog." It's just letters forming words, nothing more. Your ridiculous disection of words is enough to make me think you're anti-semantic.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   
   [*]Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

   
   The United States Constitution does. By allowing me to vote on issues like this one.

   
   I'm straight and single so this doesn't affect me, personally, but I work in the entertainment business. If I were as much of a bigot as you, I'd have a really rough time with my clients.
   
   But sure... Go ahead and vote for your bigoted opinion. The good news is, you don't live or vote in California.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   
   Or are you just venting as a blowhard bigot? :roll:

   
   Not at all, but very mature of you.

   
   Sorry if the truth hurts. :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.

Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Idiotic comment. If the amendment passes, gay marriage discrimination will occur, period.

And if the passed amendment is overruled by the courts, judcial activism will have occurred again, period.

I'll say this very slowly for you.

The concept under which gay marriage was declared legal is the one which says that the constitution overrides laws.

Since the constitution guarantees equal protection, and the state was unable to prove any basis for discriminating, 4 of the 7 justices enforced the constitution.

If the amendment passes, then it modified the guarantee of equal protection not to include equal protection for gays on marital rights, so the entire basis for the ruling is gone.

At that point, the constitution itself would say discrimination is required, and there's no further constitutional review available.

What you are speculating about is called "paranoia", that the big bad evil courts are secretly serving evil to hurt you without regard for the law.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

1. 
   
   I dont! Its what they do in their PUBLIC lives that I'm against (marriage)

1. 
   
   Fine, call it public, the question is why you have the right to say gays can't marry - not the 'right' in the sense you have the right to vote, the moral right as in the sense that you have the right to say gays or inter-racial couples can't marry, or that blacks can be forced into slavery, or that women should not have the right to vote. Why do you think you are morally right to discriminate and deny them equality?
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

   
   Civil unions are fine with me, not gay marriage.

   
   One part of that equality is not getting second-class, 'separate but equal' marriage, but equal marriage to you. Why are they not entitled to equality?
   
   Your desire to keep that word for yourself, whatever the excuse you offer, appears to merely be the motivation of bigotry to have some 'dividing line' of disapproval of them.
   
   Just as whites used to like to keep blacks 'separate but equal'.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

The United States Constitution does. By allowing me to vote on issues like this one.

See above. You are not being asked about the ability to vote, any more than you would use that answer for defending your vote to reinstate slavery. It's the morality of the vote.

 

[nageov3t]

I read that CA celebrated its first gay marriage today...

http://www.queerty.com/queerin...rizing-obama-20080611/

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Marriage is a creature of the state that grants specific legal rights, benefits and responsiblities under the civil laws. As such, gays have as much right to enjoy those rights, benefits and responsibilities as straight couples.

If the only reason you would deny those rights and benefits to them is because YOU don't like what THEY do, you are indeed a freaking BIGOT! :thumbsdown:

Again, all of this is covered under a civil union.

Originally posted by: Harvey
You can call it "marriage" "civil union" or "Fred's three legged dog." It's just letters forming words, nothing more. Your ridiculous disection of words is enough to make me think you're anti-semantic.

Exactly. So give them civil-unions, not gay marriage.

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm straight and single so this doesn't affect me, personally, but I work in the entertainment business. If I were as much of a bigot as you, I'd have a really rough time with my clients.

But sure... Go ahead and vote for your bigoted opinion. The good news is, you don't live or vote in California.

You're right, I don't live in California. Unforunately, we've already seen states like New York use what has happened in California as a reason to make gay marriage legal in that state as well. Its only a matter of time before it spreads to other states.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Or are you just venting as a blowhard bigot? :roll:

Not at all, but very mature of you.

Sorry if the truth hurts. :roll:[/quote]

You of all people here should know better than to flame people by calling them names for their beliefs, especially in this forum.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.

Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Idiotic comment. If the amendment passes, gay marriage discrimination will occur, period.

And if the passed amendment is overruled by the courts, judcial activism will have occurred again, period.

I'll say this very slowly for you.

The concept under which gay marriage was declared legal is the one which says that the constitution overrides laws.

Since the constitution guarantees equal protection, and the state was unable to prove any basis for discriminating, 4 of the 7 justices enforced the constitution.

If the amendment passes, then it modified the guarantee of equal protection not to include equal protection for gays on marital rights, so the entire basis for the ruling is gone.

At that point, the constitution itself would say discrimination is required, and there's no further constitutional review available.

What you are speculating about is called "paranoia", that the big bad evil courts are secretly serving evil to hurt you without regard for the law.

The whole point of the people voting on something is to enact it or not. The people of California voted 61% in favor of banning homosexual marriage.

Unfortunately, people like yourself see "opinion polls" only a few years later and use that as a basis to pursue this kind of judicial activism.

If you want gay marriage to be legal in California, put it on the ballot and let the people decide, just like they did before.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Unforunately, we've already seen states like New York use what has happened in California as a reason to make gay marriage legal in that state as well. Its only a matter of time before it spreads to other states.

We all know you hate the UN, so I'll remove it for you.

Fortunately, we've already seen states like New York use what has happened in California as a reason to make gay marriage legal in that state as well. Its only a matter of time before it spreads to other states.

p.s. The news I read is that New York will recognize gay marriages *from other states*. Nothing too exceptional about that. They need to let their own gay people marry there.

 

[yuppiejr]

Marrige is also an institution of religious significance that predates the state in question. I can understand the sensitivity that people of various faiths have with the issue based on their traditions. If gays were only interested in equal legal rights and benefits via the civil union process we wouldn't be having this debate. Admit it or not, this is about gays wanting their relationships to be legally recognized as "legitimate" in the same way that heterosexual relationships are.

I, frankly, don't care either way. It rings as a bit self conscious on the part of gays to be so concerned about what everyone else thinks by forcing the issue down everyone's throat via the legal system over essentially a matter of vocabulary. I hate to say it but people who think less of gays will not change their tune as the result of some law or change in legal status. I know gay couples who are far better together AND better parents than hetero couples so really I don't care what they call their relationships.

There are bigger issues in this country than who marries who or what they call it - seriously, if everyone just quit sticking their fucking noses in everyone elses lives/businesses we'd all be better off. Lets focus on something more important to me personally (since what I think/want/need should be on the top of everyone's priority list, get your pens out...) like why the fuck I can't buy beer on Sundays or why I can't see a sweet pair of knocks on network TV yet I can watch a guy getting his arm ripped off and beaten with it any time of day. At least give a guy the choice while I'm drinking my beer 7 days a week...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Marrige is also an institution of religious significance that predates the state in question. I can understand the sensitivity that people of various faiths have with the issue based on their traditions. If gays were only interested in equal legal rights and benefits via the civil union process we wouldn't be having this debate. Admit it or not, this is about gays wanting their relationships to be legally recognized as "legitimate" in the same way that heterosexual relationships are.

The horror. That's called "equality".

I, frankly, don't care either way. It rings as a bit self conscious on the part of gays to be so concerned about what everyone else thinks by forcing the issue down everyone's throat via the legal system over essentially a matter of vocabulary. I hate to say it but people who think less of gays will not change their tune as the result of some law or change in legal status. I know gay couples who are far better together AND better parents than hetero couples so really I don't care what they call their relationships.

Let me force you to call your marriage a different word to give it a stigma, and see how you feel. The point isn't that bigots will change, it's that the government isn't officially bigoted.

There are bigger issues in this country than who marries who or what they call it - seriously, if everyone just quit sticking their fucking noses in everyone elses lives/businesses we'd all be better off. Lets focus on something more important to me personally (since what I think/want/need should be on the top of everyone's priority list, get your pens out...) like why the fuck I can't buy beer on Sundays or why I can't see a sweet pair of knocks on network TV yet I can watch a guy getting his arm ripped off and beaten with it any time of day. At least give a guy the choice while I'm drinking my beer 7 days a week...

So YOU get YOUR nose out of gays' business and let equality enter the law, and get rid of the discrimination. Who cares if there are bigger issues?

If a cop searches you and your house for no reason, there are bigger issues.

If the local Denny's says they won't serve you because of your race, there are bigger issues.

If the government decides to single you out to have to pay an extra $10 on your taxes for no reason, there are bigger issues.

There are countless examples, and they're all wrong and all worth correcting.

Sorry, but your post tells me nothing but that you are too narrow minded to give a crap about how other people are hurt, and you are happy to keep the wrong in place.

 

[nageov3t]

homosexuality existed before organized religion, we should have dibs.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.

Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Idiotic comment. If the amendment passes, gay marriage discrimination will occur, period.

And if the passed amendment is overruled by the courts, judcial activism will have occurred again, period.

I'll say this very slowly for you.

The concept under which gay marriage was declared legal is the one which says that the constitution overrides laws.

Since the constitution guarantees equal protection, and the state was unable to prove any basis for discriminating, 4 of the 7 justices enforced the constitution.

If the amendment passes, then it modified the guarantee of equal protection not to include equal protection for gays on marital rights, so the entire basis for the ruling is gone.

At that point, the constitution itself would say discrimination is required, and there's no further constitutional review available.

What you are speculating about is called "paranoia", that the big bad evil courts are secretly serving evil to hurt you without regard for the law.

The whole point of the people voting on something is to enact it or not. The people of California voted 61% in favor of banning homosexual marriage.

Unfortunately, people like yourself see "opinion polls" only a few years later and use that as a basis to pursue this kind of judicial activism.

If you want gay marriage to be legal in California, put it on the ballot and let the people decide, just like they did before.

(swoosh) --------------------- my post ------------------ (swoosh)








Corbett's head

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

1. 
   
   I dont! Its what they do in their PUBLIC lives that I'm against (marriage)

1. 
   
   Fine, call it public, the question is why you have the right to say gays can't marry - not the 'right' in the sense you have the right to vote, the moral right as in the sense that you have the right to say gays or inter-racial couples can't marry, or that blacks can be forced into slavery, or that women should not have the right to vote. Why do you think you are morally right to discriminate and deny them equality?
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

   
   Civil unions are fine with me, not gay marriage.

   
   One part of that equality is not getting second-class, 'separate but equal' marriage, but equal marriage to you. Why are they not entitled to equality?
   
   Your desire to keep that word for yourself, whatever the excuse you offer, appears to merely be the motivation of bigotry to have some 'dividing line' of disapproval of them.
   
   Just as whites used to like to keep blacks 'separate but equal'.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

The United States Constitution does. By allowing me to vote on issues like this one.

See above. You are not being asked about the ability to vote, any more than you would use that answer for defending your vote to reinstate slavery. It's the morality of the vote.

Waiting for Corbett's response.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.

Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Idiotic comment. If the amendment passes, gay marriage discrimination will occur, period.

And if the passed amendment is overruled by the courts, judcial activism will have occurred again, period.

I'll say this very slowly for you.

The concept under which gay marriage was declared legal is the one which says that the constitution overrides laws.

Since the constitution guarantees equal protection, and the state was unable to prove any basis for discriminating, 4 of the 7 justices enforced the constitution.

If the amendment passes, then it modified the guarantee of equal protection not to include equal protection for gays on marital rights, so the entire basis for the ruling is gone.

At that point, the constitution itself would say discrimination is required, and there's no further constitutional review available.

What you are speculating about is called "paranoia", that the big bad evil courts are secretly serving evil to hurt you without regard for the law.

The whole point of the people voting on something is to enact it or not. The people of California voted 61% in favor of banning homosexual marriage.

Unfortunately, people like yourself see "opinion polls" only a few years later and use that as a basis to pursue this kind of judicial activism.

If you want gay marriage to be legal in California, put it on the ballot and let the people decide, just like they did before.

(swoosh) --------------------- my post ------------------ (swoosh)








Corbett's head

Not at all. I just prefer to stay on topic.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Questions: Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

In private/in the closet = fine with me. But I don't want my young children exposed to the PDAs of two guys or two girls and thinking that is okay behavior. From my view, being gay it is a violation of natural law, forget the religious aspect of it.

Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

I don't. That's what civil unions are for. Marriage is a sacred institution joining man + woman for the encouragement of family creation and continuing the human race. Two gays cannot reproduce naturally. And I sure as shit don't want them adopting children, which will be their next demand you wait and see. Kids need a mom and a dad -- I speak from experience as a parent.

Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives

Laws in this any country are largely based on the morality of its citizens. And there are plenty (thank God) who believe gay marriage is a violation of natural law, notwithstanding their own religious beliefs.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.

Questions:

1. Exactly why do you give a rat's ass what gay couples do in their private lives?

1. 
   
   I dont! Its what they do in their PUBLIC lives that I'm against (marriage)

1. 
   
   Fine, call it public, the question is why you have the right to say gays can't marry - not the 'right' in the sense you have the right to vote, the moral right as in the sense that you have the right to say gays or inter-racial couples can't marry, or that blacks can be forced into slavery, or that women should not have the right to vote. Why do you think you are morally right to discriminate and deny them equality?
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly why would you deny them the same legal, civil rights, privileges and obligations accorded to straight couples?

   
   Civil unions are fine with me, not gay marriage.

   
   One part of that equality is not getting second-class, 'separate but equal' marriage, but equal marriage to you. Why are they not entitled to equality?
   
   Your desire to keep that word for yourself, whatever the excuse you offer, appears to merely be the motivation of bigotry to have some 'dividing line' of disapproval of them.
   
   Just as whites used to like to keep blacks 'separate but equal'.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Exactly who the fsck gave you the right to make such determinations about other people's lives?

The United States Constitution does. By allowing me to vote on issues like this one.

See above. You are not being asked about the ability to vote, any more than you would use that answer for defending your vote to reinstate slavery. It's the morality of the vote.

Waiting for Corbett's response.

Equating slavery and race issues to choosing a homosexual lifestyle is disingenuous and degrades the accomplishments blacks have gone through over the years to get where they are today.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Not at all. I just prefer to stay on topic.

The topic was your claim that the court will probably just overturn the constitutional amendment i it passes, and my explanation why that's wrong.

You went in to an irrelevant rant about public opinion polls that has nothing to do with the topic.

You're the one who did not stay on topic.