Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[whylaff]

What I think is hilarious about this issue, is that if you cross out references to sexual orientation and replace them with ones regarding race, these arguments are almost verbatim what they once were for the justification of not allowing someone to marry outside of their race.

 

[cubeless]

and it creates a whole new stream of revenue for divorce lawyers...

and who's going to define and ensure that marriage candidates 'love' each other, for either scenario? i always thought it interesting that marrying an alien to help them get into the country is illegal... many marriages have an economic component... there's a definite economic component to same sex issue... it's all about having new things to make rules about most of the time, it seems to me...

 

[ElFenix]

yay court packing! democracy when it agrees with us, unelected tribunals when it doesn't!

 

[cubeless]

yay court packing! democracy when it agrees with us, unelected tribunals when it doesn't!

it's worked so well with city councils and school boards, look at the great results 'progressives' have had there...

 

[Robor]

I love my sister yet I cannot marry her even when the California constitution states the marriage is between a man and a woman.

What exactly is your point.

Can a homosexual get married? YES THEY CAN.
You care confusing two different issues. If the law said that marriage could only be between two heterosexual people than you might have an argument but that is not what the California constitution states.

NOTHING in the California constitution forbids a homosexual from getting married.

EDIT: On a side note, I love how disagreeing with someone means that I hate them. Typical liberal attitude that has lead to the demise of support throughout California over those who were against Proposition 8.

^^ Nomination for moronic post of the year award. ^^

 

[Moonbeam]

What I think is hilarious about this issue, is that if you cross out references to sexual orientation and replace them with ones regarding race, these arguments are almost verbatim what they once were for the justification of not allowing someone to marry outside of their race.

That is because both are nothing but pure unadulterated bigotry, a blind delusional state in which the rationalization for the position is an unconscious bias and hate to which the bigot is completely blind.

At root the two positions are based on a feeling one holds deeply that one is certain must be correct, that what is happening is evil.

We will find lots of Blacks, for example, deeply resentful of laws that bar inter-racial marriage, but consider that homosexual marriage is an evil sin.

This is because, in every case, a bigot has been taught that the truth is not something one discovers by logic and the pursuit of reason, but must be gotten from some musty old book.

They see their religious belief to be the alpha and omega in which if every word isn't true the universe will collapse.

These are the blinded small minded folk that haunt the human race, whose fear of evil is the source of all human disgrace, the monsters that kill and destroy the world in the name of the Good. They are the very evil they hold in contempt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

...right to marry the person they love.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

"marriage" or any such other thing is something that is ACKNOWLEDGED by the institution recognizing it. It has EXACTLY ZERO to do with emotion - especially not "love". You morons keep trying to make this an emotional argument when it is anything but one. This is a legal issue - nothing more - nothing less.

IMO, what this ruling will tell us, is if states still have a right to amend their own Constitution or not AND if the SCOTUS will be an activist institution instead of one that uses the Constitution as written to determine law.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I love my sister yet I cannot marry her even when the California constitution states the marriage is between a man and a woman.

What exactly is your point.

Can a homosexual get married? YES THEY CAN.
You care confusing two different issues. If the law said that marriage could only be between two heterosexual people than you might have an argument but that is not what the California constitution states.

NOTHING in the California constitution forbids a homosexual from getting married.

EDIT: On a side note, I love how disagreeing with someone means that I hate them. Typical liberal attitude that has lead to the demise of support throughout California over those who were against Proposition 8.

A bigger load of BULLSHIT I've never read. Fear mongering and pure lies sold to mindless idiots through millions of dollars in church backed advertising is what got that worthless piece of legislation passed...and just barely I might add.

It sickens me that Prop 8 passed.

 

[Moonbeam]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

"marriage" or any such other thing is something that is ACKNOWLEDGED by the institution recognizing it. It has EXACTLY ZERO to do with emotion - especially not "love". You morons keep trying to make this an emotional argument when it is anything but one. This is a legal issue - nothing more - nothing less.

IMO, what this ruling will tell us, is if states still have a right to amend their own Constitution or not AND if the SCOTUS will be an activist institution instead of one that uses the Constitution as written to determine law.

Talk about morons, sheesh! I sure hope the emotional experiences of slavery had nothing to do with its elimination and it's still OK to count Black folk as fractional people.

 

[whylaff]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

"marriage" or any such other thing is something that is ACKNOWLEDGED by the institution recognizing it. It has EXACTLY ZERO to do with emotion - especially not "love". You morons keep trying to make this an emotional argument when it is anything but one. This is a legal issue - nothing more - nothing less.

IMO, what this ruling will tell us, is if states still have a right to amend their own Constitution or not AND if the SCOTUS will be an activist institution instead of one that uses the Constitution as written to determine law.

It will all depend on what the question that is eventually brought towards SCOTUS is, as it could be extremely narrow. The issue that States have with most of their constitutional amendments is that they potentially violate the Full Faith and Credit clause by not honoring marriages from other States. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is why you can relocate and not have to get married again. It is also why your divorce is honored in other States.

There are certain economic caveats that the Court has upheld with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, such as in and out of state college tuition and a residency time restriction on divorce filing. The best example of this is in action is first cousin marriages. They are certainly not legal everywhere, but they have to be recognized by every state.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Talk about morons, sheesh! I sure hope the emotional experiences of slavery had nothing to do with its elimination and it's still OK to count Black folk as fractional people.

oh look more attempts to try to equate this issue to slavery - it's not even close but you already knew that. It's just that your types can't help trying to support your emotional argument with more emotion. Some day you people will learn that it's not all about your little feelings.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It will all depend on what the question that is eventually brought towards SCOTUS is, as it could be extremely narrow. The issue that States have with most of their constitutional amendments is that they potentially violate the Full Faith and Credit clause by not honoring marriages from other States. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is why you can relocate and not have to get married again. It is also why your divorce is honored in other States.

There are certain economic caveats that the Court has upheld with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, such as in and out of state college tuition and a residency time restriction on divorce filing. The best example of this is in action is first cousin marriages. They are certainly not legal everywhere, but they have to be recognized by every state.

true, it depends on the question. I will not hold my breath on it being a narrow question though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

oh look more attempts to try to equate this issue to slavery - it's not even close but you already knew that. It's just that your types can't help trying to support your emotional argument with more emotion. Some day you people will learn that it's not all about your little feelings.

How's the air up there on your high horse?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

How's the air up there on your high horse?

You mean down here in the real world where laws and facts matter more than your little feelings?

 

[Moonbeam]

oh look more attempts to try to equate this issue to slavery - it's not even close but you already knew that. It's just that your types can't help trying to support your emotional argument with more emotion. Some day you people will learn that it's not all about your little feelings.

My dear Sir, I did not equate the issue to slavery. You equated the issue to law as opposed to feeling and I simply showed you what a silly argument that is by showing another area where law was the product of feeling. It is about feeling because law is an attempt to codify justice and the sense of justice is a feeling.

What you want to do is pretend that law is decided by what is already written in the books without admitting that all that was written was written with justice, a feeling, in mind. And new law and law that ammends old law will do the same. All things will be colored by humanities evolving journey toward what is ultimately right. What is inalienable and absolute is inalienable and absolute, but in all cases it must be uncovered.

You, Sir, express an interest in the status quo and not justice and in this way you are evil. You have the disease of believing in ancient religious text that was written by ancient bigots.

 

[Carmen813]

I see 2 solutions to this:

1.) Allow homosexuals to marry, but do not force religions against it to conduct ceremonies.

2.) Get government the fuck out of marriage entirely. No more marriage licenses, no more tax breaks, no more special rights to government programs, no more special hospital visitation rights or any of the other 1000+ legal incentives there are for getting married.

I'm fine with either one.

 

[Jaskalas]

I see 2 solutions to this:

1.) Allow homosexuals to marry, but do not force religions against it to conduct ceremonies.

2.) Get government the fuck out of marriage entirely. No more marriage licenses, no more tax breaks, no more special rights to government programs, no more special hospital visitation rights or any of the other 1000+ legal incentives there are for getting married.

I'm fine with either one.

I've supported #2 for a while now. The only way for tradition to save face is to distance itself from the government.

 

[glenn1]

That's a pretty typical right-wing post from someone who really doesn't give a crap about others' rights and posts a 'moderate, pragmatic' opinion. All the bother and hassle uproar causes! Who needs it?

Why, history shows that the popiulation always evolves the right view, if you're just patient. Oh, wait, it shows the opposite.

We had a court decision the public hated in Brown v. Board of Education. Funny, after having progress forced on them - with billboards saying to lynch Earl Warren - now it's one of the most beloved rulings.

It'd also been 60 years. But no doubt if they'd ust let the public opinion get around to it, it'd be so much better for them than having the public forced.

I've got an idea. Let's have the public deny you the right to marry and hold off on the courts protecting your right.

Yeah, you progressives love democracy and the "little guy," at least until they vote a way you don't like and then your authoritarian streak comes out to play.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I see 2 solutions to this:

1.) Allow homosexuals to marry, but do not force religions against it to conduct ceremonies.

2.) Get government the fuck out of marriage entirely. No more marriage licenses, no more tax breaks, no more special rights to government programs, no more special hospital visitation rights or any of the other 1000+ legal incentives there are for getting married.

I'm fine with either one.

#2 please since all these supposed "1000+ legal incentives" can be done via legal contract anyway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

My dear Sir, I did not equate the issue to slavery. You equated the issue to law as opposed to feeling and I simply showed you what a silly argument that is by showing another area where law was the product of feeling. It is about feeling because law is an attempt to codify justice and the sense of justice is a feeling.

What you want to do is pretend that law is decided by what is already written in the books without admitting that all that was written was written with justice, a feeling, in mind. And new law and law that ammends old law will do the same. All things will be colored by humanities evolving journey toward what is ultimately right. What is inalienable and absolute is inalienable and absolute, but in all cases it must be uncovered.

You, Sir, express an interest in the status quo and not justice and in this way you are evil. You have the disease of believing in ancient religious text that was written by ancient bigots.

I see you still feed at the trough of ASSumptions and ignorance. Nice try though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I see you still feed at the trough of ASSumptions and ignorance. Nice try though.

Moonbeam had a well written reply and addressed the "issues" you attempted to raise. You reply with name calling and hatred...kind of like the holier than thou morons who oppose gay marriage in the name of religion.

You lose the debate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Moonbeam had a well written reply and addressed the "issues" you attempted to raise. You reply with name calling and hatred...kind of like the holier than thou morons who oppose gay marriage in the name of religion.

You lose the debate.

If you say so. Did you read what he posted? Do you not see the ASSumptions and ignorance? really?

PS. moonbeam doesn't have a clue about me or what I believe, let alone why I believe it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I see 2 solutions to this:

1.) Allow homosexuals to marry, but do not force religions against it to conduct ceremonies.

2.) Get government the fuck out of marriage entirely. No more marriage licenses, no more tax breaks, no more special rights to government programs, no more special hospital visitation rights or any of the other 1000+ legal incentives there are for getting married.

I'm fine with either one.

I'm not fine with either one. I'm fine with #1 only. #2 is too nebulous and allows groups to have their rights infringed upon by people who disagree with them.

 

[JulesMaximus]

If you say so. Did you read what he posted? Do you not see the ASSumptions and ignorance? really?

PS. moonbeam doesn't have a clue about me or what I believe, let alone why I believe it.

Yes, I read what he posted...and I agree with him.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yes, I read what he posted...and I agree with him.

Who gives a crap what you believe? This isn't about you, it's about equal rights.

You obviously didn't read what he posted. He used "you" repeatedly and tried to claim my position when he is ignorant about it - thus the ASSumptions.

Wallow away with him if you wish.