California High Court to Rule on Gay Marriage

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte
when did BHO lie about his position on gay marriage?

It may not be a lie but it's so nuanced that it confuses people. Also, it may be a lie.

He seems to have fully endorsed it in the past. http://www.windycitymediagroup.../ARTICLE.php?AID=20229

He was opposed to Prop 8 not because of the end result but b/c of the process; he doesn't think people should go messing with other people's rights in state constitutions.

He's been very adamant about repealing DOMA, though we haven't seen any action on that front, and as eskimo pointed out the practical effect of no DOMA is gay marriage everywhere.

So what to conclude? I think the most accurate interpretation would be that his personal opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he does not support government enforcement of that belief. Similar to having a personal belief that life begins at conception, yet favoring the legal right to choose abortion. It's not a very clear position and he seems to not want to engage it right now. I do have faith of a sort that he will address the issue when/if the economy recovers and/or in his second term. But he is certainly not providing leadership in the movement right now, and that's definitely by his choice.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
The people spoke, but in this case, the courts need to overturn their choice in favor of protecting the equal rights of its citizens.

You're fooling yourself if you think people truely have equal rights in this country. Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others.

Homosexuality is not a normal thing. The people spoke and the majority doesn't like it. Tough. Would you support pedophiles wanting to marry children? What about someone wanting to marry a dog or a horse? Where do you stop? If you say being gay is genetic, so is being a pedophile. It's been proven that some people are only attracted to children. They didn't say, hey, I like little girls/boys, forget the grown ups, they just are/were that way. So if you allow the minority (gays) to override the wishes of the majority in this case, then you must allow for it in every case here on out.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Homosexuality is not a normal thing. The people spoke and the majority doesn't like it. Tough. Would you support pedophiles wanting to marry children? What about someone wanting to marry a dog or a horse? Where do you stop?

Well in Massachusetts where it's been legal for 6 years I hear they're marrying televisions and whatnot. I swear.

I'm not in favor of forced sterilization but maybe I could make an exception for you.

(either your handle is the most facetious one on the forum, or you've never seen the movie)

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
The people spoke, but in this case, the courts need to overturn their choice in favor of protecting the equal rights of its citizens.

You're fooling yourself if you think people truely have equal rights in this country. Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others.

Homosexuality is not a normal thing. The people spoke and the majority doesn't like it. Tough. Would you support pedophiles wanting to marry children? What about someone wanting to marry a dog or a horse? Where do you stop? If you say being gay is genetic, so is being a pedophile. It's been proven that some people are only attracted to children. They didn't say, hey, I like little girls/boys, forget the grown ups, they just are/were that way. So if you allow the minority (gays) to override the wishes of the majority in this case, then you must allow for it in every case here on out.

I know you have a difficult time with logic, and therefore this point will completely escape you, but children aren't consenting adults. No matter how much you want to them to be, they aren't adults. Therefore, they can't consent. Also, animals aren't adults, and therefore can't consent.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
The people spoke, but in this case, the courts need to overturn their choice in favor of protecting the equal rights of its citizens.

You're fooling yourself if you think people truely have equal rights in this country. Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others.

Homosexuality is not a normal thing. The people spoke and the majority doesn't like it. Tough. Would you support pedophiles wanting to marry children? What about someone wanting to marry a dog or a horse? Where do you stop? If you say being gay is genetic, so is being a pedophile. It's been proven that some people are only attracted to children. They didn't say, hey, I like little girls/boys, forget the grown ups, they just are/were that way. So if you allow the minority (gays) to override the wishes of the majority in this case, then you must allow for it in every case here on out.

Homosexuals are two consenting adults and, like heterosexuals, are clearly not comparable to paedophiles.

Were you involved in an accident or have you always been a moron?

 

[n yusef]

Let me repost an illustration of the effects of same-sex marriage..

 

[TruePaige]

I've supported gay marriage forever. I want gays to have every right I have, but this was the right decision.

The california high court should not be able to overturn prop votes. That is what this was about.

I feel sorry California gays have to suffer, and I think it is wrong, but this isn't the avenue to fix it.

Now if the high court wants to overturn the vote based on the fact that it is blatant discrimination, I'm all for that.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
The california high court should not be able to overturn prop votes. That is what this was about.

Originally posted by: TruePaigeNow if the high court wants to overturn the vote based on the fact that it is blatant discrimination, I'm all for that.

This is a prime example of blatant discrimination. In 50 years, people will look back on the gay marriage debate in the same way we look at segregation during the '50s.

Of course, I think we are looking at the debate from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be fighting to allow gay marriage, we should be fighting to remove government regulation of relationships between consenting adults. Marriage is a contractual agreement between consenting adults and nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: TruePaige
The california high court should not be able to overturn prop votes. That is what this was about.

Originally posted by: TruePaigeNow if the high court wants to overturn the vote based on the fact that it is blatant discrimination, I'm all for that.

This is a prime example of blatant discrimination. In 50 years, people will look back on the gay marriage debate in the same way we look at segregation during the '50s.

Of course, I think we are looking at the debate from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be fighting to allow gay marriage, we should be fighting to remove government regulation of relationships between consenting adults. Marriage is a contractual agreement between consenting adults and nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

:thumbsup:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Homosexuality is not a normal thing. The people spoke and the majority doesn't like it. Tough. Would you support pedophiles wanting to marry children? What about someone wanting to marry a dog or a horse? Where do you stop?

Well in Massachusetts where it's been legal for 6 years I hear they're marrying televisions and whatnot. I swear.

I'm not in favor of forced sterilization but maybe I could make an exception for you.

(either your handle is the most facetious one on the forum, or you've never seen the movie)

It's true. When I was growing up, my mothers weren't allowed to marry, but damned if they didn't go around buying wedding gowns for every appliance in the house just in case. If gay marriage had been legal, they would have been married to a refrigerator, a ficus, a kiln, an 18-foot length of soaker hose and a half-eaten packet of rice krispie squares. Hell, I was almost legally married to our dog; thank goodness the judge had the common sense to realize that gay marriage hadn't yet been legalized. How embarrassing would that have been?

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: TruePaige
The california high court should not be able to overturn prop votes. That is what this was about.

Originally posted by: TruePaigeNow if the high court wants to overturn the vote based on the fact that it is blatant discrimination, I'm all for that.

This is a prime example of blatant discrimination. In 50 years, people will look back on the gay marriage debate in the same way we look at segregation during the '50s.

Of course, I think we are looking at the debate from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be fighting to allow gay marriage, we should be fighting to remove government regulation of relationships between consenting adults. Marriage is a contractual agreement between consenting adults and nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

When you ask 2 people why they want to get married - what do they usually answer with? "we are in love" - not "we want a legal document to prove our contractual love for each other".

In 50 years [and only if we haven't nuked the planet yet] - legal bounds between 2 entities [m-m, m-w, w-w, m-it, w-it, it-it - where "it" = machine, m-animal, w-animal, animal-animal, etc] will be the norm.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: coloumb
In 50 years [and only if we haven't nuked the planet yet] - legal bounds between 2 entities [m-m, m-w, w-w, m-it, w-it, it-it - where "it" = machine, m-animal, w-animal, animal-animal, etc] will be the norm.

That's what they said after Loving v. Virginia too. Please let me know how your toasterwife is doing, give her my best.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: coloumb
When you ask 2 people why they want to get married - what do they usually answer with? "we are in love" - not "we want a legal document to prove our contractual love for each other".

In 50 years [and only if we haven't nuked the planet yet] - legal bounds between 2 entities [m-m, m-w, w-w, m-it, w-it, it-it - where "it" = machine, m-animal, w-animal, animal-animal, etc] will be the norm.

Clearly this is the only thing that can possibly happen. My car and my Zune need to be married; they've been living in sin.

Think about what you just said for a minute. You've literally said that in 50 years we will have marriages between any two objects in the world. There are no words to accurately describe just how asinine that claim is, so I'm forced to conclude that you are absolutely correct, and I look forward to being the first septuagenarian in my neighborhood to marry the island of Oahu.

 

[jonks]

And the federal suit is filed (by a Republican!):
http://www.washingtonexaminer....goes-to--46137917.html

Haven't seen the complaint yet, but I'm assuming it's not a direct appeal of yesterday's decision since that was about the power of the people to amend the constitution under CA law, and not on the merits of Prop 8.

But this is another legal dream team, Olsen and Boies.

Some gay rights groups disagree with the move and would rather go the legislative route:
http://www.google.com/hostedne...otyM9xpL4hwkwD98EO6UG0

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks
And the federal suit is filed (by a Republican!):
http://www.washingtonexaminer....goes-to--46137917.html

Haven't seen the complaint yet, but I'm assuming it's not a direct appeal of yesterday's decision since that was about the power of the people to amend the constitution under CA law, and not on the merits of Prop 8.

But this is another legal dream team, Olsen and Boies.

You understand the reasoning behind not wanting to take it to a federal level, correct?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jonks
And the federal suit is filed (by a Republican!):
http://www.washingtonexaminer....goes-to--46137917.html

Haven't seen the complaint yet, but I'm assuming it's not a direct appeal of yesterday's decision since that was about the power of the people to amend the constitution under CA law, and not on the merits of Prop 8.

But this is another legal dream team, Olsen and Boies.

You understand the reasoning behind not wanting to take it to a federal level, correct?

Whose reasoning?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: coloumb
When you ask 2 people why they want to get married - what do they usually answer with? "we are in love" - not "we want a legal document to prove our contractual love for each other".

In 50 years [and only if we haven't nuked the planet yet] - legal bounds between 2 entities [m-m, m-w, w-w, m-it, w-it, it-it - where "it" = machine, m-animal, w-animal, animal-animal, etc] will be the norm.

Clearly this is the only thing that can possibly happen. My car and my Zune need to be married; they've been living in sin.

Think about what you just said for a minute. You've literally said that in 50 years we will have marriages between any two objects in the world. There are no words to accurately describe just how asinine that claim is, so I'm forced to conclude that you are absolutely correct, and I look forward to being the first septuagenarian in my neighborhood to marry the island of Oahu.

Only if polygamy is legalized by then too... I've had my eye on that sexy hunk of land mass for some time now.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: coloumb
When you ask 2 people why they want to get married - what do they usually answer with? "we are in love" - not "we want a legal document to prove our contractual love for each other".

In 50 years [and only if we haven't nuked the planet yet] - legal bounds between 2 entities [m-m, m-w, w-w, m-it, w-it, it-it - where "it" = machine, m-animal, w-animal, animal-animal, etc] will be the norm.

Clearly this is the only thing that can possibly happen. My car and my Zune need to be married; they've been living in sin.

Think about what you just said for a minute. You've literally said that in 50 years we will have marriages between any two objects in the world. There are no words to accurately describe just how asinine that claim is, so I'm forced to conclude that you are absolutely correct, and I look forward to being the first septuagenarian in my neighborhood to marry the island of Oahu.

Only if polygamy is legalized by then too... I've had my eye on that sexy hunk of land mass for some time now.

I, for one, don't understand coloub's blatantly bigoted stance on only allowing such unions if we haven't yet experienced nuclear fallout. What exactly does he find so objectionable about the radiationally challenged?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: jonks
I, for one, don't understand coloub's blatantly bigoted stance on only allowing such unions if we haven't yet experienced nuclear fallout. What exactly does he find so objectionable about the radiationally challenged?

So you're saying I can marry Oahu now?

 

[Paddington]

Gays do have the right to marry... the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like somebody else.

We haven't established yet that "gay marriage" is even such a thing, with any legitimacy. Maybe gays and "progressives" believe in it, but does society acknowledge it? Does the government acknowledge it? That's the question.

Some like to say that the government should "stay out of people's bedrooms". Fair enough. They have as far as I can tell. In fact, I recall the highly controversial Friend's episode from circa 1995 when they went to a gay wedding. There was no "gay marriage" recognized by the government back then. In fact, nobody is stopping gays from going to their own religious or secular organizations or whatever to get these "gay marriages".

But what they want though, goes beyond that. They want government recognition of these so-called marriages on par with heterosexuals. On that, it must be put to a vote to see if society acknowledges it. And in many states, as well as highly liberal California, they do not and have rejected this new definition of marriage. It's as simple as that.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: coloumb
When you ask 2 people why they want to get married - what do they usually answer with? "we are in love" - not "we want a legal document to prove our contractual love for each other".

In 50 years [and only if we haven't nuked the planet yet] - legal bounds between 2 entities [m-m, m-w, w-w, m-it, w-it, it-it - where "it" = machine, m-animal, w-animal, animal-animal, etc] will be the norm.

Clearly this is the only thing that can possibly happen. My car and my Zune need to be married; they've been living in sin.

Think about what you just said for a minute. You've literally said that in 50 years we will have marriages between any two objects in the world. There are no words to accurately describe just how asinine that claim is, so I'm forced to conclude that you are absolutely correct, and I look forward to being the first septuagenarian in my neighborhood to marry the island of Oahu.

What about pieces of software, I really like Linux and I'd like to marry it? What about the millions of people that would marry World of Warcraft? Would that be like polygamy?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Gays do have the right to marry... the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like somebody else.

We haven't established yet that "gay marriage" is even such a thing, with any legitimacy. Maybe gays and "progressives" believe in it, but does society acknowledge it? Does the government acknowledge it? That's the question.

Some like to say that the government should "stay out of people's bedrooms". Fair enough. They have as far as I can tell. In fact, I recall the highly controversial Friend's episode from circa 1995 when they went to a gay wedding. There was no "gay marriage" recognized by the government back then. In fact, nobody is stopping gays from going to their own religious or secular organizations or whatever to get these "gay marriages".

But what they want though, goes beyond that. They want government recognition of these so-called marriages on par with heterosexuals. On that, it must be put to a vote to see if society acknowledges it. And in many states, as well as highly liberal California, they do not and have rejected this new definition of marriage. It's as simple as that.

Before Loving v. Virginia black and white people had the right to marry... the right to marry someone of the same race. Then that was changed, and it wasn't put to a vote.

Whoops.

 

[dali71]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Paddington
Gays do have the right to marry... the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like somebody else.

We haven't established yet that "gay marriage" is even such a thing, with any legitimacy. Maybe gays and "progressives" believe in it, but does society acknowledge it? Does the government acknowledge it? That's the question.

Some like to say that the government should "stay out of people's bedrooms". Fair enough. They have as far as I can tell. In fact, I recall the highly controversial Friend's episode from circa 1995 when they went to a gay wedding. There was no "gay marriage" recognized by the government back then. In fact, nobody is stopping gays from going to their own religious or secular organizations or whatever to get these "gay marriages".

But what they want though, goes beyond that. They want government recognition of these so-called marriages on par with heterosexuals. On that, it must be put to a vote to see if society acknowledges it. And in many states, as well as highly liberal California, they do not and have rejected this new definition of marriage. It's as simple as that.

Before Loving v. Virginia black and white people had the right to marry... the right to marry someone of the same race. Then that was changed, and it wasn't put to a vote.

Whoops.

And until the SCOTUS overturns Baker v. Nelson, state governments can ban same-sex marriages without violating the Constitution. Let's see how long that takes...

 

[Paddington]

I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

You're sort of missing the point of the USSC decision. It wasn't about whether or not it was considered a 'marriage'. The fundamental right established by Loving is the right of someone to marry the person of their choosing.

What's really missing from the federal level right now is the establishment of homosexuals as a 'protected class'. Once they get that (and they most certainly will in the relatively near future) it will be impossible for the courts to deny same sex marriage across the US. It's simply a matter of time.

That's why I'm starting to get tired of these arguments, not only does everyone just repeat themselves (and people throw out ridiculous arguments) but it really doesn't matter. Pro-gay people have already won, it's only a question of when.