Judge knocks down marriage prop in ca

[Tab]

This thread cracks me up... anyone with half a brain looks at this gay rights issue as absolutely ridiculous. Comparisons to womens rights and black rights are spot on. You can't go around depriving people of their rights just because the majority of people think it's cool. I mean if the majority of people decided it was a good idea to round up jews and execute them would that be acceptable as well? Our founding fathers built the constitution to protect against exactly this type of anti-gay bullshit.

No shit. What do expect is going to happen with the majority votes on minority rights?

 

[JockoJohnson]

yet where is the movement for legalization of polygamy?
QUOTE]

OH RLY?!?!

http://www.google.com/#q=legalize+p...P78AaX6Jj2Ag&ved=0CAYQpwU&fp=f9519659d5d079d0

I used google so I don't get blasted for picking a site that might be left or right biased. Narrow the search down to within the last year if you want.

Canada legalized gay rights (which I find nothing wrong with) but now there is a legitimate fight to get polygamy legalized. And now that they are sliding down that slippery slope that no one else said they would, is marrying animals next? Or children? Or objects?

I know I am taking it a bit extreme but this is what you get when there isn't a clear definition---the tyranny of the minority (or better yet, lack of common sense and people abusing that)

 

[JockoJohnson]

You're not worse than white bigots.... just equal is all. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Any questions?

So you and others don't agree with his reasoning so he must be a bigot. It's not that he might actually believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I am not trying to put words in Classy's mouth but it just seems cowardly to immediately jump to the bigot card and blanketly state that anyone against this must be a bigot.

Again, I say as long as this law doesn't affect me then let the gays and lesbians have at marriage. But I believe there are sound arguments from both sides of this issue. There are also whacky arguments as well. But all arguments against it should not be labeled as bigotry.

 

[Vette73]

So you and others don't agree with his reasoning so he must be a bigot. It's not that he might actually believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I am not trying to put words in Classy's mouth but it just seems cowardly to immediately jump to the bigot card and blanketly state that anyone against this must be a bigot.

Again, I say as long as this law doesn't affect me then let the gays and lesbians have at marriage. But I believe there are sound arguments from both sides of this issue. There are also whacky arguments as well. But all arguments against it should not be labeled as bigotry.

Really, what is the "sound argument" against gay marriage?
Even the head lawyer trying to keep Prop8 could not come up with a answer when asked what damage would be caused by allowing gays to marry.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Really, what is the "sound argument" against gay marriage?
Even the head lawyer trying to keep Prop8 could not come up with a answer when asked what damage would be caused by allowing gays to marry.

For one, those that say a marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage should be for the continuation of society (procreation). But since government is involved in marriages, government gets a say in how marriage is defined. Now I just wish they would define it and stop keeping it so open-ended.

I don't think that people are bigots if they believe that. There might be bigots who use that as their excuse for stopping gay marriage.

Also, for people who don't want to let them marry, it's not so much damage as calling it marriage.

 

[ichy]

The sodomites may have won a temporary victory in court, but no liberal activist judge will be able to spare them from eternal damnation in the fires of hell!

j/k, I actually don't care about gay marriage. Doesn't affect me in any way.

 

[Pens1566]

For one, those that say a marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage should be for the continuation of society (procreation). But since government is involved in marriages, government gets a say in how marriage is defined. Now I just wish they would define it and stop keeping it so open-ended.

I don't think that people are bigots if they believe that. There might be bigots who use that as their excuse for stopping gay marriage.

What about infertile couples? No marriage for them? Same thing.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Agreed. I am not really arguing against gay marriage as I have stated that it is fine with me.

And I know where you are going with this: adoption. And gays and lesbians should be allowed to adopt as well. No problem here. Just pointing out arguments from the other side that I honestly don't believe makes them bigots, just stuck in their ways of what a marriage is defined as.

 

[cliftonite]

yet where is the movement for legalization of polygamy?
QUOTE]

OH RLY?!?!

http://www.google.com/#q=legalize+p...P78AaX6Jj2Ag&ved=0CAYQpwU&fp=f9519659d5d079d0

I used google so I don't get blasted for picking a site that might be left or right biased. Narrow the search down to within the last year if you want.

Canada legalized gay rights (which I find nothing wrong with) but now there is a legitimate fight to get polygamy legalized. And now that they are sliding down that slippery slope that no one else said they would, is marrying animals next? Or children? Or objects?

I know I am taking it a bit extreme but this is what you get when there isn't a clear definition---the tyranny of the minority (or better yet, lack of common sense and people abusing that)

Can animals, children, and objects consent?

 

[cliftonite]

For one, those that say a marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage should be for the continuation of society (procreation). But since government is involved in marriages, government gets a say in how marriage is defined. Now I just wish they would define it and stop keeping it so open-ended.

I don't think that people are bigots if they believe that. There might be bigots who use that as their excuse for stopping gay marriage.

Also, for people who don't want to let them marry, it's not so much damage as calling it marriage.

So people who are incapable of bearing children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

[JockoJohnson]

No, but what is to stop people from trying to bring it up in court? Others have stated that the polygamy law won't be challenged. Who is to say that the definition of marriage won't be changed in the future to not require consent (just an example, I know it is extreme).

 

[MJinZ]

For one, those that say a marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage should be for the continuation of society (procreation). But since government is involved in marriages, government gets a say in how marriage is defined. Now I just wish they would define it and stop keeping it so open-ended.

I don't think that people are bigots if they believe that. There might be bigots who use that as their excuse for stopping gay marriage.

Also, for people who don't want to let them marry, it's not so much damage as calling it marriage.

Except Gay Marriages do not prevent procreation.

Government is not involved in marriages. They just grant benefits for marriages. Government doesn't give you houses, they just give you tax benefits for buying houses.

My question for most of you are not - are you bigots?

But - are you stupid?

 

[MJinZ]

No, but what is to stop people from trying to bring it up in court? Others have stated that the polygamy law won't be challenged. Who is to say that the definition of marriage won't be changed in the future to not require consent (just an example, I know it is extreme).

I know, it is such a slippery slope.

We should have just kept it to white males who can hold property, vote and money. Look at how far down the slope we've fallen?

By the way, can we change the law so that sex does not require consent? That would be awesome, so we can start raping people legally.

You are so smart!

 

[JockoJohnson]

Except Gay Marriages do not prevent procreation.

Government is not involved in marriages. They just grant benefits for marriages. Government doesn't give you houses, they just give you tax benefits for buying houses.

My question for most of you are not - are you bigots?

But - are you stupid?

Then if government isn't involved in marriages, why is this even an issue? If a pastor/minister/whoever wants to marry gays and lesbians, let them. I guess the argument is more that the state and federal governments don't want to recognize these marriages for tax reasons?

 

[JockoJohnson]

I know, it is such a slippery slope.

We should have just kept it to white males who can hold property, vote and money. Look at how far down the slope we've fallen?

By the way, can we change the law so that sex does not require consent? That would be awesome, so we can start raping people legally.

You are so smart!

The law has changed in the past, why can't it change in the future? I used an extreme example which will never happen...hopefully. Overall, people and laws have changed for the better--blacks, women, and soon gays and lesbians.

 

[MJinZ]

Then if government isn't involved in marriages, why is this even an issue? If a pastor/minister/whoever wants to marry gays and lesbians, let them. I guess the argument is more that the state and federal governments don't want to recognize these marriages for tax reasons?

The issue has nothing to with marriages on a private level. I can proclaim to be married to my dog, the next 80 year old next door neighbor, and no one would give a shit.

Governments treat marriages as a legal status.

It is the same as being black and not being able to vote or own property. Because you're black and legally, you're not granted the same benefits.

It is the same as being gay and not being able to have rights of survivorship, visiting rights, property protection etc etc.

None of this has any effect on societal marriages. Marry 15 other people in your own Church and in your heads, no one really gives a shit. The State, however, will rightly find that the same benefits given marriages would not apply to the group of 16 married for very good reasons.

 

[Doboji]

So you and others don't agree with his reasoning so he must be a bigot. It's not that he might actually believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I am not trying to put words in Classy's mouth but it just seems cowardly to immediately jump to the bigot card and blanketly state that anyone against this must be a bigot.

Again, I say as long as this law doesn't affect me then let the gays and lesbians have at marriage. But I believe there are sound arguments from both sides of this issue. There are also whacky arguments as well. But all arguments against it should not be labeled as bigotry.

He's a bigot because he discriminates against others... again no gay person is saying that a marriage cannot be between a man and a woman. If your opinion is that a marriage should be between a man and a woman... then make your marriage that. But to judge and deprive other citizens of their rights because of your views is bigotry.

The "white bigots" were once of the opinion that black people shouldn't be permitted to vote. Shall we say they weren't bigots because "they are entitled to their opinion".

 

[Carmen813]

:thumbsup:

 

[JockoJohnson]

The issue has nothing to with marriages on a private level. I can proclaim to be married to my dog, the next 80 year old next door neighbor, and no one would give a shit.

Governments treat marriages as a legal status.

It is the same as being black and not being able to vote or own property. Because you're black and legally, you're not granted the same benefits.

It is the same as being gay and not being able to have rights of survivorship, visiting rights, property protection etc etc.

None of this has any effect on societal marriages. Marry 15 other people in your own Church and in your heads, no one really gives a shit. The State, however, will rightly find that the same benefits given marriages would not apply to the group of 16 married for very good reasons.

That makes perfect sense. Nothing much else to say about it.

 

[shira]

Not going to take a position on this issue but it is quite disturbing that the judge didn't recuse himself from this trial.

Really? So you also found it disturbing that Justice Scalia - an active hunter - didn't recuse himself from the recent gun cases? And you'd also find it disturbing if Scalia - a Catholic with 9 children - didn't recuse himself from abortion cases?

 

[shira]

But the reality is, the argument is the same. Consenting adults doing what they want, tradition be damned.

Where do the "moral" lines get drawn?

Whether to allow a particular behavior should never be decided on the basis of "morality". The decision should be made on the basis of whether the behavior entails a significant and overriding harm.

Allowing same-sex marriage is entirely positive - I can't think of any "harm," except in the minds of those who think it's immoral.

As to polygamy, there's a significant harm involved in its legalization: The history of polygamy in the United States shows an extremely high correlation between polygamy and abuse of children (underage females being forced into marriage, and underage males being forced out on their own to reduce competition for females).

 

[actuarial]

Equal protection to twist tradition into perversion.

Everyone already IS allowed to marry. It's an argument of terms here. Man and Woman, anything else simply isn't the traditional term. To twist it will anger a lot of traditional people.

There are ways to avoid this fight, to drop marriage from ALL legal standing. They don't want to, they'd rather fight and create this uproar.

Let's see if I can make the same arguments for outlawing inter-religion marriages:

Equal protection to twist tradition into perversion.

Everyone already IS allowed to marry. It's an argument of terms here. Catholic Man and Catholic Woman, Jewish Man and Jewish Woman, etc. anything else simply isn't the traditional term. To twist it will anger a lot of traditional people.

 

[actuarial]

They are different phenomena, but the issues are not separate. The arguments, both for and against both of these institutions, are for the most part identical in rhetorical form and effect.

Not really, rights are only granted to individuals, not groups.

Can I marry Person X? My smell test for discrimination: If you are not discriminating based on a certain thing (such as race, gender, religion), then your answer cannot be dependent on those attributes.

Banning gay marriage requires one to determine the gender of people before allowing them to marry. Banning poligamy only requires one to determine their current marital status.

You ARE allowed to discriminate based on marital status in terms of benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. You are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

 

[OutHouse]

well my little jeezus freak neocon, the majority cant vote away the rights of the minority. The way the founding fathers set up the government was to insure as such.

lol if you say so.

did i say i was against gay marriage? nope i did not. my point was that everytime there is a popular vote its challenged in court. I dont give a shit if gays marry it doesnt affect me in any way shape or form. as long as all parties are consenting and that is what they want then have at it. same goes for polygamy.
btw im Buddhist.

 

[shira]

You act as if the right to claim the term marriage has something to do with treating people as humans. As if it’s the corner stone of human rights. It simply isn’t. That you’d mention blacks and women is an insult to those movements.

You're confused. This has nothing to do with "treating people as humans." In fact, most cases that get the the Supreme Court have nothing to do with "treating people as humans." Did the recent gun-rights case fit that description?

Married adults derive various benefits under the law. If you prevent adults from marrying for arbitrary reasons, you prevent them from deriving the same benefits extended to others under the law. That's a violation of equal protection of the laws.