Courageous and principled for selling out to a special interest over a sizable majority?
At least they'll look like fools in 2 weeks.
Courageous and principled for selling out to a special interest over a sizable majority?
At least they'll look like fools in 2 weeks.
When are people going to get it through their heads that Constitutional rights are not subject to a majority vote? If a judge finds that something violates the constitution, he is not only supposed to strike it down, but he is REQUIRED to do so.
Prop 8 will hopefully go down in defeat, as it will just be looked upon as a black mark on California's history in years to come. Even if it doesn't though, it won't matter. Gay marriage will be legal in America sometime in the relatively near future, the only question is when. Everyone knows this, it's just some people won't admit it to themselves.
no on 8. the state can't discriminate period. what is next? target people through religious association?
Oh man, you are just like the bigots who want to take gay people's right to marry away. Who the hell are you to suggest we enforce on others our own stupid opinions. You are the opposite side of the coin of being burned at the stake. A lot of those superstitious supernaturalists you ridicule are better people than you'll ever be. They aren't all hate filled imbecilic bigots. Millions of them understand the core message of their religion is love. And gays are often deeply religious too.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I think they or the supporters of this kind of ummmmm protectionism wish to have an Amendment listing the approved religions...
But, It is all about separate is NOT equal... not in this nor in anything. Each person has the right to get 'married'. That is where it all begins... and ends..
You don't understand anything about principles, so the point is lost on you.
Who did the *Republicans* who decided this 'sell out to'? They don't get anything from the gay population. They're justices. They hurt themselves if anything with their allies.
What they did was to apply the constitution against their own political orientation and defend the few against the many, which is the height of what the court should do.
You continue to fail to understand the concept of the constitutional individual right. It's not based on popular approval of your free speech, of your religion. It's an individual right.
And the polls all say you're wrong about the result of the upcoming election.
Thank goodness the bigots are now a minority. You are an immoral person as well.
I sadly disagree with your prediction. I agree public sentiment will likely shift towards gay marriage in many areas, but that's not enough to change the law.
I think the best to hope for is a repeal of DOMA, the Discrimination On Marriage Act (my definition), and a minority of states legalizing gay marriage within many years.
Hopefully, more would be possible, but a Supreme Court decision based on Equal Rights to suddenly legalize it like they did in the Loving decision on interracial marriage seems unlikely to me. A federal policy ordering states to recognize gay marriage seems unlikely as well. I don't rule them out, but put the odds as pretty poor.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
There is no evidence of multiple things anti-gay people spout:
1) There has been no casual effect shown that legalizing same sex marriage will increase divorce and/or out-of-wedlock births. None. Please provide a link to research stating otherwise so that it may be roundly debunked. Otherwise, you're just not convincing anyone. In fact, polls show you're going to be gravely disappointed in 16 days.
2) There has been no proof shown that gay couples are less capable of raising children than straight couples. In fact, it has been just the opposite (slightly).
If you think there has been sufficient evidence to prove either of these myths, then link it. Otherwise, GTFO because no one is buying this garbage video.
1) There has been no casual effect shown that legalizing same sex marriage will increase divorce and/or out-of-wedlock births. None. Please provide a link to research stating otherwise so that it may be roundly debunked. Otherwise, you're just not convincing anyone. In fact, polls show you're going to be gravely disappointed in 16 days.
2) There has been no proof shown that gay couples are less capable of raising children than straight couples. In fact, it has been just the opposite (slightly).
If you think there has been sufficient evidence to prove either of these myths, then link it. Otherwise, GTFO because no one is buying this garbage video.
Well the way I see it, DOMA won't really hold up for long. What you're going to end up with is several of the large, more liberal states with legalized gay marriage (look to New York next) and you'll have a whole bunch of other states where it's not recognized. That's going to create a huge clusterfuck when it comes to all sorts of contracts, regulations, etc between states. I imagine this will compel the federal courts to get involved sooner or later, and when they do it is quite likely gay marriage will be legalized. If not sooner, then later. I'm certain it will be in my lifetime assuming I don't get run over by a bus in the next couple of years.
Well, we might see action taken for the smooth operation where states have to recognize the gay marriages from other states, but that doesn't make them allow them themselves.
The trigger for every gay marriage state so far has been based on state courts interpreting the state constitutions, and that's not all that reproducible in most states.
That leaves building popular support for elections to legalize gay marriage - something that's not happened in any state yet - and is likely only in a small number.
If Social Progressivism and Conservatism were stocks that I could put real money on, I'd bet on the Progressives every time. Over the long haul, they always win.
If Conservatives had their way over the last 500 years, the Earth would still be flat, the Sun would revolve around it, and pandemics would still be Acts of God.
Some US communities, up until Loving Vs. Virginia in 1967, tried to ban interracial marriage.
We're only 41 years post decriminalization of miscegenation.
Same Shit, different group of folks who Aren't Like You.
If Conservatives had their way over the last 500 years, the Earth would still be flat, the Sun would revolve around it, and pandemics would still be Acts of God.
Some US communities, up until Loving Vs. Virginia in 1967, tried to ban interracial marriage.
We're only 41 years post decriminalization of miscegenation.
Same Shit, different group of folks who Aren't Like You.
WTF are the homophobe bigots so worried about gay people? Geez, quit trying to tell other people how to live their lives and focus on your own shortcomings.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I want to be clear on this, just to show I have no immediate interest in the outcome... I am a straight man, with 2 kids lliving in Arizona.
VOTE NO!!!
Whyt are you afraid of what others do in their bedroom and who they decide to live with and marry?
This is America, If you dont like gay marriage, than I fully support your right to NOT marry a gay man. =) its that simple.
If that happens then it doesn't really matter anymore. If states are forced to recognize each other's gay marriages then it's over. About 99% of gay people who want to get married will be able to spring for a trip to a gay friendly state to get married in and then come back to their home state.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,550
- 940
- 126
I just mailed out my no vote, but with the amount of money being poured in, I don't think it will be defeated. Very, very sad to think about that 
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.
Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter