California High Court to Rule on Gay Marriage

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

But... but .... once again you're telling me that Obama is a lying weasel politician like all the other ones? That he purposely deceives and manipulates his gullible constituents and lies to them in order to get elected and pursue his personal agenda? How does that jive with him telling the truth, and bringing change to politics as usual?

Change I didn't believe in

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Delude yourself all you want. The funny thing is that you've already lost... you just don't know it yet.

The anti gay marriage side is doomed, every year public opinion goes more and more in favor of gay marriage. It might not be legal today, it might not be legal tomorrow, but it will be someday soon and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Sure, whatever. In the meanwhile, I'll just chuckle at the current state of events that Iowa has become a more progressive state than those bigots in California. Well, at least you have President Obama - oh sorry, he opposes gay marriage also.

Except if you read between the lines Obama is on track to legalize gay marriage throughout the entire country. He says he opposes gay marriage, but supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. With DOMA repealed, gay marriage effectively becomes legal nationwide.

Still so sure you want to chuckle?

How does gay marriage become legal nationwide with the repeal of DOMA? It still requires states to pass gay marriage (through the law or the constitution).

As for Iowa being more progressive than California - good for Iowa on this issue, but the CA legislature strongly passed gay marriage before Iowa - only Arnold vetoed it.

One guy, Arnold, doesn't determine the state's political orientation - though I say California is more confused than progressive, we have a big radical right minority faction.

It really doesn't require other states to pass gay marriage. It's pretty widely figured that with DOMA gone the remaining states who don't have gay marriage will be forced to recognize gay unions in the other states through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Now you're probably going to say 'legislation doesn't affect what the Constitution says' and technically you're right, but when Congress has spoken on the issue it becomes a lot lot muddier.

California isn't really confused, it just has a few very liberal areas surrounded by insanely conservative ones. The only problem is that in California some of the largest 'liberal' groups also tend to be conservative on issues like gay marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

But... but .... once again you're telling me that Obama is a lying weasel politician like all the other ones? That he purposely deceives and manipulates his gullible constituents and lies to them in order to get elected and pursue his personal agenda? How does that jive with him telling the truth, and bringing change to politics as usual?

You know I've told you this before, bringing 'change' to Washington doesn't mean that the person changing things is going to change 100% of all things. He doesn't have to wear shoes on his hands because people usually wear them on their feet. This whole 'LOLCHANGE' thing that you're attempting to perpetuate here has been absolutely silly from the start, and is only the product of ignorance by people ideologically inclined to oppose him.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

But... but .... once again you're telling me that Obama is a lying weasel politician like all the other ones? That he purposely deceives and manipulates his gullible constituents and lies to them in order to get elected and pursue his personal agenda? How does that jive with him telling the truth, and bringing change to politics as usual?

You know I've told you this before, bringing 'change' to Washington doesn't mean that the person changing things is going to change 100% of all things. He doesn't have to wear shoes on his hands because people usually wear them on their feet. This whole 'LOLCHANGE' thing that you're attempting to perpetuate here has been absolutely silly from the start, and is only the product of ignorance by people ideologically inclined to oppose him.

Common now, you're being intellectually dishonest. You're basically saying he purposely lied to the voters, telling them he was against gay marriage, just so he could get elected and then go back on his word. If a republican did that, you'd call him a liar and a politician, but somehow when Obama does it, it's OK? :laugh: Look, I don't expect him to come in and change everything around, but I do get sick of this facade of honesty/openness/change that he and his propaganda machine try to push, when it's painfully obvious that he's just another lying scumbag politician like all the rest of them. Call a spade a spade.

 

[bozack]

so much for those who said that the way this was passed was illegal...guess they were wrong.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have no problem giving those who bear the burden of parenthood and child-raising a few extra fringe benefits.

Beyond that, people like to claim "EQUALITY!!! YOU'RE DENYING US OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!! RELIGION BE DAMNED, DAMN YOU FUCKING RELIGION!!! FUCK YOU EVIL RELIGIOUS FUCKS!!! MAYBE IF I CALL EVERYONE A BIGOT A THOUSAND MORE TIMES IT'LL FINALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!" A gay is just as equal and just as protected under the law as every other non-married man or woman. This is why comparing this to the civil rights movement or the women's rights movement is utter crap.

Despite the title of this thread, California did not rule on gay marriage, it ruled on the procedure of the proposition.

Show me a two gay men who can produce a baby together, and I will take up the fight for their right to marry.

Until then...

You're an idiot, and you are making argument long since debunked countless times.

Gays *are* denied the same rights as heterosexuals: the right to marry the fellow adult they naturally love.

Your argument is like saying that mixed-race couple are not discriminated against when mixed-race marriage is illegal because they have the same right to marry someone of their own race that others have. It's a very basic logical error you are making in denying the discrimination in the definition you use.

You are also a hypocrite in not having long demanded that childless heterosexual coples be treated like gays - denied the right to marry since they have not had children, you say marriage is only abotu children - which is incorrect itself, but you are inconsistent about it, allowing marriages of childless heterosexual couples. And then there are the gay couples who raise children - either the children of one of the spouses, or adopted.

Your argument supports a heterosexual couple raising the child of one spouse from another marriage, or children they adopt - but you are inconsistent with gay couples.

You really don't deserve these rebuttals being made for probably the 100th time here; anyone making your stale debunked arguments is basically in troll status at this time.

Why haven't you responded to the first 100 times your bad arguments were rebutted?

They were rebutted 100 times? How about we count and see just how many responses I got

Why haven't I responded yet? Because sometimes I have other more important things to do than pay attention to you.

It's like they had a new story on the local news here in Chicago a minute ago on protests against the decision. Many gay and lesbians out protesting, shouting they're denied rights, blah blah blah blah. When asked what rights they want? Could only come up with social security benefits transfered after death.

Really?

Money?

That's what this is primarily about?

They feel they are denied monies from the government?

You say: "Gays *are* denied the same rights as heterosexuals: the right to marry the fellow adult they naturally love."

Heterosexuals are denied that "same" right in situations too, which always are brought up, and the response is often the same BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT FUCK RELIGION :roll:

Are they being denied the right to live and share themselves with whomever they want? We're arguing over a piece of paper and a pile of money.






Like I said before, show me two gay men who can create a child together and I will fight for the right for gay marriage.

Really, seriously, what are you so upset about? I'm one person who does not work for any legislature.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

How does gay marriage become legal nationwide with the repeal of DOMA? It still requires states to pass gay marriage (through the law or the constitution).

As for Iowa being more progressive than California - good for Iowa on this issue, but the CA legislature strongly passed gay marriage before Iowa - only Arnold vetoed it.

One guy, Arnold, doesn't determine the state's political orientation - though I say California is more confused than progressive, we have a big radical right minority faction.

It really doesn't require other states to pass gay marriage. It's pretty widely figured that with DOMA gone the remaining states who don't have gay marriage will be forced to recognize gay unions in the other states through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Now you're probably going to say 'legislation doesn't affect what the Constitution says' and technically you're right, but when Congress has spoken on the issue it becomes a lot lot muddier.

California isn't really confused, it just has a few very liberal areas surrounded by insanely conservative ones. The only problem is that in California some of the largest 'liberal' groups also tend to be conservative on issues like gay marriage.

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

Methinks its a pretty sure bet that that whole issue will end up in front of the supremes at some point as well....

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

Purely out of curiosity, why didn't this happen prior to DOMA?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

But... but .... once again you're telling me that Obama is a lying weasel politician like all the other ones? That he purposely deceives and manipulates his gullible constituents and lies to them in order to get elected and pursue his personal agenda? How does that jive with him telling the truth, and bringing change to politics as usual?

You know I've told you this before, bringing 'change' to Washington doesn't mean that the person changing things is going to change 100% of all things. He doesn't have to wear shoes on his hands because people usually wear them on their feet. This whole 'LOLCHANGE' thing that you're attempting to perpetuate here has been absolutely silly from the start, and is only the product of ignorance by people ideologically inclined to oppose him.

Common now, you're being intellectually dishonest. You're basically saying he purposely lied to the voters, telling them he was against gay marriage, just so he could get elected and then go back on his word. If a republican did that, you'd call him a liar and a politician, but somehow when Obama does it, it's OK? :laugh: Look, I don't expect him to come in and change everything around, but I do get sick of this facade of honesty/openness/change that he and his propaganda machine try to push, when it's painfully obvious that he's just another lying scumbag politician like all the rest of them. Call a spade a spade.

I'd love to hear how I'm being intellectually dishonest. (seriously, I'm not sure if that phrase means what you think it means)

Anyone who thinks politicians don't lie is an idiot. Anyone who thinks that because all politicians lie, that one who lies is the same as another who does due to this fact... is also an idiot. Furthermore, I'm not saying he lied to voters in any way, shape, or form about gay marriage. He explicitly stated during the campaign that he wanted to repeal DOMA.

I think you're having the same problem with Obama that a lot of people who are ideologically opposed to him have. You assume 'change' meant, 'change in the way I think it should mean change'.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

Methinks its a pretty sure bet that that whole issue will end up in front of the supremes at some point as well....

I hope not. I'm happy having the states decide individually.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

Purely out of curiosity, why didn't this happen prior to DOMA?

Because gay marriage wasn't legal anywhere.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

Purely out of curiosity, why didn't this happen prior to DOMA?

Nevermind. Didn't know that DOMA was in 96. Don't think any states had legalized it by then. I'm surprised Clinton signed it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have no problem giving those who bear the burden of parenthood and child-raising a few extra fringe benefits.

Beyond that, people like to claim "EQUALITY!!! YOU'RE DENYING US OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!! RELIGION BE DAMNED, DAMN YOU FUCKING RELIGION!!! FUCK YOU EVIL RELIGIOUS FUCKS!!! MAYBE IF I CALL EVERYONE A BIGOT A THOUSAND MORE TIMES IT'LL FINALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!" A gay is just as equal and just as protected under the law as every other non-married man or woman. This is why comparing this to the civil rights movement or the women's rights movement is utter crap.

Despite the title of this thread, California did not rule on gay marriage, it ruled on the procedure of the proposition.

Show me a two gay men who can produce a baby together, and I will take up the fight for their right to marry.

Until then...

You're an idiot, and you are making argument long since debunked countless times.

Gays *are* denied the same rights as heterosexuals: the right to marry the fellow adult they naturally love.

Your argument is like saying that mixed-race couple are not discriminated against when mixed-race marriage is illegal because they have the same right to marry someone of their own race that others have. It's a very basic logical error you are making in denying the discrimination in the definition you use.

You are also a hypocrite in not having long demanded that childless heterosexual coples be treated like gays - denied the right to marry since they have not had children, you say marriage is only abotu children - which is incorrect itself, but you are inconsistent about it, allowing marriages of childless heterosexual couples. And then there are the gay couples who raise children - either the children of one of the spouses, or adopted.

Your argument supports a heterosexual couple raising the child of one spouse from another marriage, or children they adopt - but you are inconsistent with gay couples.

You really don't deserve these rebuttals being made for probably the 100th time here; anyone making your stale debunked arguments is basically in troll status at this time.

Why haven't you responded to the first 100 times your bad arguments were rebutted?

They were rebutted 100 times? How about we count and see just how many responses I got

Why haven't I responded yet? Because sometimes I have other more important things to do than pay attention to you.

It's like they had a new story on the local news here in Chicago a minute ago on protests against the decision. Many gay and lesbians out protesting, shouting they're denied rights, blah blah blah blah. When asked what rights they want? Could only come up with social security benefits transfered after death.

Really?

Money?

That's what this is primarily about?

They feel they are denied monies from the government?

You say: "Gays *are* denied the same rights as heterosexuals: the right to marry the fellow adult they naturally love."

Heterosexuals are denied that "same" right in situations too, which always are brought up, and the response is often the same BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT FUCK RELIGION :roll:

Are they being denied the right to live and share themselves with whomever they want? We're arguing over a piece of paper and a pile of money.






Like I said before, show me two gay men who can create a child together and I will fight for the right for gay marriage.

Really, seriously, what are you so upset about? I'm one person who does not work for any legislature.

without being upset at you over your ignorant point of view I can honestly say your argument(s) have been addressed before and they are poopoo.

carry on though...enjoy the moment of success for the bigots in society.

stomp on gay people whom you feel don't rate as your equal...it makes you feel better.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

But... but .... once again you're telling me that Obama is a lying weasel politician like all the other ones? That he purposely deceives and manipulates his gullible constituents and lies to them in order to get elected and pursue his personal agenda? How does that jive with him telling the truth, and bringing change to politics as usual?

You know I've told you this before, bringing 'change' to Washington doesn't mean that the person changing things is going to change 100% of all things. He doesn't have to wear shoes on his hands because people usually wear them on their feet. This whole 'LOLCHANGE' thing that you're attempting to perpetuate here has been absolutely silly from the start, and is only the product of ignorance by people ideologically inclined to oppose him.

Common now, you're being intellectually dishonest. You're basically saying he purposely lied to the voters, telling them he was against gay marriage, just so he could get elected and then go back on his word. If a republican did that, you'd call him a liar and a politician, but somehow when Obama does it, it's OK? :laugh: Look, I don't expect him to come in and change everything around, but I do get sick of this facade of honesty/openness/change that he and his propaganda machine try to push, when it's painfully obvious that he's just another lying scumbag politician like all the rest of them. Call a spade a spade.

when did BHO lie about his position on gay marriage?

I think you are full of crap.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, that's sort of my point, that with the repeal of DOMA, a Kentucky gay couple still can't get married in Kentucky. We don't suddenly have nationally legal gay marriage.

I think California is confused Our 'liberal' state threw out a good Democratic governor by blaming him for Enron's sins, and put Arnold - an actual friend of Enron - in office.

But the example I usually use to make the case is how we elected Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan governor back to back. QED.

But the Kentucky couple can go get married in Massachusetts and then go back to Kentucky and force the state to recognize their marriage under the full faith and credit clause. So, we really do.

IIRC, there were restrictions on out of state couples doing that, like a period of residency.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: munky
LOL. The majority voted, and the minority whiners are going to cry to "mommy" government. If you don't like how the people of the state voted, go live somewhere else. It's not a constitutional "right" to get marriage benefits, and heterosexual couples don't get married for the sole purpose of receiving those benefits. The gays are free to live their life as they please, no one is denying them their civil rights, but that doesn't mean they are now "entitled" the get benefits originally created for heterosexual marriage couples.

Fuck you and fuck religion.

This proposition and the people that support it are complete fucking failures. I can't believe the CA supreme court let this ILLEGAL proposition pass. Absolutely amazes me that we are even having this issue in fucking 2009!

F*** you and trying to impose your F***ing opinions on others. If you don't think it's legal, then tough shit, because it is.

 

[Synomenon]

Wow, I thought CA was a progressive state.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: munky
LOL. The majority voted, and the minority whiners are going to cry to "mommy" government. If you don't like how the people of the state voted, go live somewhere else. It's not a constitutional "right" to get marriage benefits, and heterosexual couples don't get married for the sole purpose of receiving those benefits. The gays are free to live their life as they please, no one is denying them their civil rights, but that doesn't mean they are now "entitled" the get benefits originally created for heterosexual marriage couples.

Another idiot who doesn't understand constitutional rights. You do have a constitutional right to be equal protection under the law, as defined in federal and state constitutions.

But you are ever worse than the typical idiot in that you deny that not having the right to marry the same sex if you are gay is not denying you a civil right.

You talk about the 'benefit originally created' for one group - the right to vote is a 'benefit originally created' for white men. Is that an argument against women and blacks voting?

Another idiot with the strawman argument. Voting is not a "benefit", didn't they teach you that in school?

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: IsLNdbOi
Wow, I thought CA was a progressive state.

When people think of California they tend to think of our liberal urban centers.....but remember, we've got a central valley too

Anyway, back on topic, in the long run this doesn't really matter, since it is pretty obvious to anyone with a couple brain cells to put together that gay marriage (or whatever you want to call it) will eventually be legalized. The battle against gay marriage is an unwinnable battle against demographics. Quite frankly, people who oppose it are dying and people who are either in favor or don't care are replacing them in terms of voting blocks......its only a matter of time.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: OrByte

when did BHO lie about his position on gay marriage?

I think you are full of crap.

Try and keep up. I was responding to eskimospy's post. Obama said numerous times during his campaign that he's opposed to gay marriage. According to eskimospy, if you 'read between the lines', he's working on effectively making gay marriage legal. Sounds like saying one thing during the campaign to get elected, then doing another once in office. No different than every other scumbag politician.

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Delude yourself all you want. The funny thing is that you've already lost... you just don't know it yet.

The anti gay marriage side is doomed, every year public opinion goes more and more in favor of gay marriage. It might not be legal today, it might not be legal tomorrow, but it will be someday soon and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Sure, whatever. In the meanwhile, I'll just chuckle at the current state of events that Iowa has become a more progressive state than those bigots in California. Well, at least you have President Obama - oh sorry, he opposes gay marriage also.

Except if you read between the lines Obama is on track to legalize gay marriage throughout the entire country. He says he opposes gay marriage, but supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. With DOMA repealed, gay marriage effectively becomes legal nationwide.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Try and keep up. I was responding to eskimospy's post. Obama said numerous times during his campaign that he's opposed to gay marriage. According to eskimospy, if you 'read between the lines', he's working on effectively making gay marriage legal. Sounds like saying one thing during the campaign to get elected, then doing another once in office. No different than every other scumbag politician.

if you read between the lines, Obama is on track to give everyone ponies and rainbows.

he's done jack shit to advance gay rights as far as I can see with no intentions of doing so. any questions about DOMA or DADT at white house press briefings get blown off.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Try and keep up. I was responding to eskimospy's post. Obama said numerous times during his campaign that he's opposed to gay marriage. According to eskimospy, if you 'read between the lines', he's working on effectively making gay marriage legal. Sounds like saying one thing during the campaign to get elected, then doing another once in office. No different than every other scumbag politician.

if you read between the lines, Obama is on track to give everyone ponies and rainbows.

he's done jack shit to advance gay rights as far as I can see with no intentions of doing so. any questions about DOMA or DADT at white house press briefings get blown off.

I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to expend any political capital to advance this issue in the foreseeable future. Hopefully the military personnel still getting discharged under DADT are keeping his "personal notes" in the appropriate spot in their bathrooms.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Like I said before, show me two gay men who can create a child together and I will fight for the right for gay marriage.

Really, seriously, what are you so upset about? I'm one person who does not work for any legislature.

Is it wrong for infertile people get married? From your posting, it looks like you are saying that.