CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban.

[marincounty]

Call me paranoid, call me a skeptic, but I don't believe that the largely right wing California supreme court did this out of principle. I believe this was another attempt to throw the election to the Republicans, by bringing back the gay marriage issue a few months before the election.

This is the same thing that caused the Dems to lose the last presidential election, last time was SF mayor Gavin Newscum and his gay marriage ploy, which outraged and energized the right.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Call me paranoid, call me a skeptic, but I don't believe that the largely right wing California supreme court did this out of principle. I believe this was another attempt to throw the election to the Republicans, by bringing back the gay marriage issue a few months before the election.

This is the same thing that caused the Dems to lose the last presidential election, last time was SF mayor Gavin Newscum and his gay marriage ploy, which outraged and energized the right.

That would be grounds for impeachment/recall.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

The constitution isn't being interpreted incorrectly it's not even being read but I really enjoy how you suddenly changed the topic to the constitution.

Every single one of my posts has been explicitly and ONLY about the constitution, as it is the only thing that matters here. In this case specifically California's constitution, but the relevant clauses are very close to the 14th amendment so it doesn't matter so much.

If you believe the constitution is being read incorrectly please explain.

:roll: So, what was all this fuss about discrimination?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

The constitution isn't being interpreted incorrectly it's not even being read but I really enjoy how you suddenly changed the topic to the constitution.

Every single one of my posts has been explicitly and ONLY about the constitution, as it is the only thing that matters here. In this case specifically California's constitution, but the relevant clauses are very close to the 14th amendment so it doesn't matter so much.

If you believe the constitution is being read incorrectly please explain.

:roll: So, what was all this fuss about discrimination?

That someone was attempting to use the argument that polygamy should be allowed using this logic, and I was explaining that discrimination is permissible under the constitution (intermediate scrutiny standard) so long as discriminatory legislation is key to the completion of a key government mission. Such a case is far far easier to make for keeping polygamy illegal then gay marriage. Clear now?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

The constitution isn't being interpreted incorrectly it's not even being read but I really enjoy how you suddenly changed the topic to the constitution.

Every single one of my posts has been explicitly and ONLY about the constitution, as it is the only thing that matters here. In this case specifically California's constitution, but the relevant clauses are very close to the 14th amendment so it doesn't matter so much.

If you believe the constitution is being read incorrectly please explain.

:roll: So, what was all this fuss about discrimination?

That someone was attempting to use the argument that polygamy should be allowed using this logic, and I was explaining that discrimination is permissible under the constitution (intermediate scrutiny standard) so long as discriminatory legislation is key to the completion of a key government mission. Such a case is far far easier to make for keeping polygamy illegal then gay marriage. Clear now?

So, what do you have against consenting adults entering polygamous marriages?

 

[arkcom]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

The constitution isn't being interpreted incorrectly it's not even being read but I really enjoy how you suddenly changed the topic to the constitution.

Every single one of my posts has been explicitly and ONLY about the constitution, as it is the only thing that matters here. In this case specifically California's constitution, but the relevant clauses are very close to the 14th amendment so it doesn't matter so much.

If you believe the constitution is being read incorrectly please explain.

:roll: So, what was all this fuss about discrimination?

That someone was attempting to use the argument that polygamy should be allowed using this logic, and I was explaining that discrimination is permissible under the constitution (intermediate scrutiny standard) so long as discriminatory legislation is key to the completion of a key government mission. Such a case is far far easier to make for keeping polygamy illegal then gay marriage. Clear now?

So, what do you have against consenting adults entering polygamous marriages?

I think the main problem with legalizing polygamy is that it often involves underage girls/ statutory rape. i.e. FLDS.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

I agree with Tab, who gives a shot what two people do in their own bedroom. STFU and mind your own business, jeez. jackass religious nuts just can't get over their bible thumping wrath of god biblical BS.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

The constitution isn't being interpreted incorrectly it's not even being read but I really enjoy how you suddenly changed the topic to the constitution.

Every single one of my posts has been explicitly and ONLY about the constitution, as it is the only thing that matters here. In this case specifically California's constitution, but the relevant clauses are very close to the 14th amendment so it doesn't matter so much.

If you believe the constitution is being read incorrectly please explain.

:roll: So, what was all this fuss about discrimination?

That someone was attempting to use the argument that polygamy should be allowed using this logic, and I was explaining that discrimination is permissible under the constitution (intermediate scrutiny standard) so long as discriminatory legislation is key to the completion of a key government mission. Such a case is far far easier to make for keeping polygamy illegal then gay marriage. Clear now?

So, what do you have against consenting adults entering polygamous marriages?

I already specifically addressed this point earlier in the thread.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: arkcom

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Tab
...

...

...

...

So, what do you have against consenting adults entering polygamous marriages?

I think the main problem with legalizing polygamy is that it often involves underage girls/ statutory rape. i.e. FLDS.

I think a few of us are missing something here. 😉

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Call me paranoid, call me a skeptic, but I don't believe that the largely right wing California supreme court did this out of principle. I believe this was another attempt to throw the election to the Republicans, by bringing back the gay marriage issue a few months before the election.

This is the same thing that caused the Dems to lose the last presidential election, last time was SF mayor Gavin Newscum and his gay marriage ploy, which outraged and energized the right.

I have to call you paranoid on this one, the first time I recall being on the other side with you🙂

You're accusing Newson of wanting Bush elected? That's a pretty big charge, and I see no evidence for it; a more plausible explanation to me is that he knew he'd build political currency with San Franciscans with that bold ploy that didn't cost him money, which it did - and he turned out to be right on the constitutional issue too.

While the Republicans do a lot, and I can see the Republican justices being intimidated on approving gay marriage - their whole 'activist judge' propaganda flies in the face of their doing the right thing - I don't see the justices participating in a scheme like this with such dubious payoff at the expense of the law, and going so much against their own party's desires regarding this issue.

I think you're taking a very dubious motive and assuming way too much.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Tab
You're correct. It is discriminatory to not allow polygamy or whatever other forms of marriage and that's precisely why the government should get out of the marriage business as a whole.

While I am a rather feminine man (huge metrosexsual here) I am very confident in my heterosexuality and I have no problems with homosexual relationships or any other kind uncommon relations such as polygamy. I do however find it disgusting, repulsive and evil that one would enforce their own personal opinion on others when it comes to matters such as this.

To be honest, I dont see a question in there anywhere, which is probably why I didnt respond to it in the first place. However, if you would like some sort of response to it, here it is.

I dont know what being a metrosexual has to do with any of this but I will say what I've said before. I know a few gay couples, and gay single people. I dont hate them, I dont preach at them whenever I talk to them and I'm not biggoted towards them. I think most that I have met and/or know are great people.

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Tab
You're correct. It is discriminatory to not allow polygamy or whatever other forms of marriage and that's precisely why the government should get out of the marriage business as a whole.

While I am a rather feminine man (huge metrosexsual here) I am very confident in my heterosexuality and I have no problems with homosexual relationships or any other kind uncommon relations such as polygamy. I do however find it disgusting, repulsive and evil that one would enforce their own personal opinion on others when it comes to matters such as this.

To be honest, I dont see a question in there anywhere, which is probably why I didnt respond to it in the first place. However, if you would like some sort of response to it, here it is.

I dont know what being a metrosexual has to do with any of this but I will say what I've said before. I know a few gay couples, and gay single people. I dont hate them, I dont preach at them whenever I talk to them and I'm not biggoted towards them. I think most that I have met and/or know are great people.

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

No, it's about taking the word of a bunch of old fools over the scientific evidence that people are born gay and have no choice in the gender that turns them on. It's about being a religious bigot and denying the love and sexual pleasure you take as a given from others. You hide your small minded blind acceptance as hating the sin. Your hate for the sin fucks a lot of people and that makes you an evil asshole.

edit> Oops, I forgot: I don't hate you, though; I just hate your bigotry.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No, it's about taking the word of a bunch of old fools over the scientific evidence that people are born gay and have no choice in the gender that turns them on. It's about being a religious bigot and denying the love and sexual pleasure you take as a given from others. You hide your small minded blind acceptance as hating the sin. Your hate for the sin fucks a lot of people and that makes you an evil asshole.

edit> Oops, I forgot: I don't hate you, though; I just hate your bigotry.

And once again, Moonbeam gets it all wrong. Nice kneejerk though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

I didn't imply that that is what you believe -- I only asked a question. Perhaps you should re-read what *I* wrote.

Regardless, your answer reveals the inconsistency in your beliefs, nonetheless.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Regardless, your answer reveals the inconsistency in your beliefs, nonetheless.

Not at all. But please feel free to prove it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

So, voting for gay rights is wrong because it's promoting sin but anything else is okay?

😕

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Regardless, your answer reveals the inconsistency in your beliefs, nonetheless.

Not at all. But please feel free to prove it.

It should be obvious. You would prefer the government prohibit a certain sin and yet not another. Obviously it cannot be because of the egregiousness of the sin, because at the very least all sins are equally abominable to god, and if not, idolatry is obviously more vocally abhorred throughout the Bible than homosexual marriage -- indeed homosexual marriage isn't even mentioned.

No, you prefer that the government prohibit a certain sin apart from others because of your own bigotry toward a group of people.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

So, voting for gay rights is wrong because it's promoting sin but anything else is okay?

😕

I never said voting for gay rights is wrong. I said I will not vote to promote gay marriage beause I believe homosexuality is a sin. Everyone is free to vote the way they want. I never said "anything else is ok" either.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

So, voting for gay rights is wrong because it's promoting sin but anything else is okay?

😕

I never said voting for gay rights is wrong. I said I will not vote to promote gay marriage beause I believe homosexuality is a sin. Everyone is free to vote the way they want. I never said "anything else is ok" either.

So, you'd vote to make homosexuality a crime?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

So, voting for gay rights is wrong because it's promoting sin but anything else is okay?

😕

I never said voting for gay rights is wrong. I said I will not vote to promote gay marriage beause I believe homosexuality is a sin. Everyone is free to vote the way they want. I never said "anything else is ok" either.

So, you'd vote to make homosexuality a crime?

Can you read? I would vote against gay marriage. That is VERY different than voting to make homosexuality a crime.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Regardless, your answer reveals the inconsistency in your beliefs, nonetheless.

Not at all. But please feel free to prove it.

It should be obvious. You would prefer the government prohibit a certain sin and yet not another. Obviously it cannot be because of the egregiousness of the sin, because at the very least all sins are equally abominable to god, and if not, idolatry is obviously more vocally abhorred throughout the Bible than homosexual marriage -- indeed homosexual marriage isn't even mentioned.

No, you prefer that the government prohibit a certain sin apart from others because of your own bigotry toward a group of people.

Yes, I know that God sees sins as equal. Please show where I advocated one sin being ok, but homosexuality not. I'll be waiting...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Corbett

However, I do believe that partaking in acts of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible; therefore, I will not vote to promote it in any way. It's all about hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Do you believe idolatry (as defined by your religion) should be a crime?

No. And I dont believe being gay should be a crime either. try re-reading what I said.

So, voting for gay rights is wrong because it's promoting sin but anything else is okay?

😕

I never said voting for gay rights is wrong. I said I will not vote to promote gay marriage beause I believe homosexuality is a sin. Everyone is free to vote the way they want. I never said "anything else is ok" either.

So, you'd vote to make homosexuality a crime?

Can you read? I would vote against gay marriage. That is VERY different than voting to make homosexuality a crime.

Would you vote on a ballot to make homosexuality a crime. Yes or No?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Tab
Would you vote on a ballot to make homosexuality a crime. Yes or No?

No. I would vote to make gay MARRIAGE unrecognized by the state.

I would NEVER vote to make homosexuality a crime