|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Stonewall |
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
May 15 09:35 PM US/Eastern
California's Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
The ruling added that all California couples had a "basic civil right" to marry "without regard to their sexual orientation."
Before Thursday only one US state -- Massachusetts -- allowed gay marriage, although California, New Jersey and Vermont have legislation which grants same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as married couples.
Plaintiffs and gay rights activists erupted with joy after the victory.
"It's the best day of my life, quite honestly I'm thrilled for all of us," Diane Olson said.
In San Francisco, couples immediately began lining up at the city clerk's office for marriage licenses, even though officials said they will not be able to issue any for at least 30 days, when the decision takes effect.
Thursday's ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.
In February 2004, the city of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.
A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.
However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.
In 2005 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.
But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state's desire to "carry out the expressed wishes of a majority" was sufficient to preserve the existing law.
California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on.
Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.
"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law.
"In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, reacted with dismay, insisting "marriage is naturally for a man and a woman."
"If the institution of marriage is redefined and therefore destroyed in the law, the wellbeing of children is threatened, both emotionally, socially, even physically," Thomasson added.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups have vowed to attempt to add a vote calling for a ban on same-sex marriage when California goes to the polls in November's election.
State election officials will rule next month on whether sponsors of the vote have gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot.
"We have 1.1 million signatures," according to the Reverend Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, describing the California ruling as "completely out of line."
Copyright AFP 2008
http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1 |
|
|
| mkriss5681 |
| Good for them. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
Good for them. |
It reminds me of Massachusetts and the series of events that their State Supreme Court set into motion across the U.S..
Now the issue will be decided in Nov., right beside the question of who they will pick for President.
I wonder how many other State ballots will include that question this time around? |
|
|
| NickNuke |
| That's just great. Courts overturning the will of the people. I'm glad I live in a democracy. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
That's just great. Courts overturning the will of the people. I'm glad I live in a democracy. |
People shouldnt be able to vote to discriminate against others. That was the problem with segregation and Jim Crow Laws and Miscegenation bans |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
People shouldnt be able to vote to discriminate against others. That was the problem with segregation and Jim Crow Laws and Miscegenation bans |
People discriminate all the time. They make laws that outlaw all kinds of things. Polygamy. Prostitution. Drugs. The list is endless. |
|
|
| mkriss5681 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It reminds me of Massachusetts and the series of events that their State Supreme Court set into motion across the U.S..
Now the issue will be decided in Nov., right beside the question of who they will pick for President.
I wonder how many other State ballots will include that question this time around? |
My fear is this will be used to fire up the evangelists again like in 2004 which helped bush win. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
My fear is this will be used to fire up the evangelists again like in 2004 which helped bush win. |
No doubt it will fire up California... |
|
|
| mkriss5681 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
No doubt it will fire up California... |
I'm positive CA will go to Obama this time but I worry about the swing states in the midwest. Obama is already an "American hating Muslim" but now they will add "Pro-Choice" in front of that to get the religious nuts all fired up. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
People discriminate all the time. They make laws that outlaw all kinds of things. Polygamy. Prostitution. Drugs. The list is endless. |
That isnt against a group of people for just being who they are, ie black or gay |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
I'm positive CA will go to Obama this time but I worry about the swing states in the midwest. Obama is already an "American hating Muslim" but now they will add "Pro-Choice" in front of that to get the religious nuts all fired up. |
Yeah but then McCain has "Overturning Roe Vs Wade" firing up women |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
That isnt against a group of people for just being who they are, ie black or gay |
The California Supreme Court has just opened up a can of worms. The residents of the State will overturn this ruling via a State Constitutional Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court will never create this right nationwide.
Equal Protection of the law does not mean that marriage must be expanded to allow for gay marriage. It is not discriminatory. Gays can still get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Same as everyone else. |
|
|
| mkriss5681 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Yeah but then McCain has "Overturning Roe Vs Wade" firing up women |
Very true. |
|
|
| NickNuke |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
That isnt against a group of people for just being who they are, ie black or gay |
Who's to say a polygamist is not "being who they are"? That's your SUBJECTIVE reasoning.
The DEFINITION of marriage is being changed here, not the ability to get married. It's a slap in the face to those who take the union of a man and woman seriously. No one is saying that homosexuals are not devoted to each other, but, marriage is a sacrament between man and woman.
This is just the next step by the homosexual mafia to make heterosexuality viewed as abhorrant, abnormal behavior.
It's like saying I am being "discriminated against" because I am blind and will not be issued a license to drive. It's my right to drive, no matter what, as anyone else has that privilege, is it not? So what if I'm blind? Fuck you. |
|
|
| NickNuke |
| We should just put this to rest and issue a national ballot vote on this. I'm all for sticking to what the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE decide. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
Who's to say a polygamist is not "being who they are"? That's your SUBJECTIVE reasoning.
The DEFINITION of marriage is being changed here, not the ability to get married. It's a slap in the face to those who take the union of a man and woman seriously. No one is saying that homosexuals are not devoted to each other, but, marriage is a sacrament between man and woman.
This is just the next step by the homosexual mafia to make heterosexuality viewed as abhorrant, abnormal behavior.
It's like saying I am being "discriminated against" because I am blind and will not be issued a license to drive. It's my right to drive, no matter what, as anyone else has that privilege, is it not? So what if I'm blind? Fuck you. |
driving is a privilege, not a right. If you are blind, you would still have the freedom of speech. Marriage is a union between two consenting adults. All the arguments used against gay marriage are identical to the arguments against miscegenation in the past.Are you opposed to that as well? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
We should just put this to rest and issue a national ballot vote on this. I'm all for sticking to what the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE decide. |
oh great...tyranny of the majority :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
oh great...tyranny of the majority :rolleyes: |
It is not tyranny that upsets you, it's that the majority rejects you, that is the problem. Tyranny of the minority is what you want...
:) |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Tyranny of the minority is what you want... |
I don't see anyone being forced into marriage :dontknow: |
|
|
| taylorsn2101 |
According to the law marriage is a contract, not a sacrament as it is in the church. The reason gay people want the right to marry include tax breaks, insurance policies and many other benefits that married couples have. There is no logical reason for gay marriage to be illegal other than someone's irrational fear or hatred of people who are "different".
If you are so concerned about taking marriage seriously, why are you not trying to change the law to make divorce illegal? |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The California Supreme Court has just opened up a can of worms. The residents of the State will overturn this ruling via a State Constitutional Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court will never create this right nationwide.
Equal Protection of the law does not mean that marriage must be expanded to allow for gay marriage. It is not discriminatory. Gays can still get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Same as everyone else. |
At this point, the tide has turned, a majority of Californians will not support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. |
|
|
| danrich03 |
Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
My fear is this will be used to fire up the evangelists again like in 2004 which helped bush win. |
Bingo.
This is a Karl Rove wedge issue. |
|
|
| HaydnPorter |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Equal Protection of the law does not mean that marriage must be expanded to allow for gay marriage. It is not discriminatory. Gays can still get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Same as everyone else. |
As a heterosexual person, how would you feel if your only option was to marry someone of the same gender? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It is not tyranny that upsets you, it's that the majority rejects you, that is the problem. Tyranny of the minority is what you want...
:) |
Are you against the Civil Rights Act? Do you believe that Redneck States should be able to have Jim Crow laws if the majority votes to discriminate against the minority? |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by HaydnPorter
As a heterosexual person, how would you feel if your only option was to marry someone of the same gender? |
You're asking the wrong guy. He's asexual. Gardening accident. |
|
|
| Oscar Wilde |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Are yu against the Civil Rights Act? Do you believe that Redneck States should be able to have Jim Crow laws if the majority votes to discriminate against the minority? |
You can't use reason with bigots.
Their bias is based in ignorance, not intelligent discourse. |
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
That's just great. Courts overturning the will of the people. I'm glad I live in a democracy. |
It's called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People just want to be happy, live their lives and not bother anyone. I'm sorry this upsets you. You know what they say about homophobic people?! |
|
|
| NoName |
| Higher I.Q.: Playmate > Homophobic Right Winger. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Gay couples should have their monogomy rewarded just as straight people.
I truly do not understand the controversy. Is it, specifically, the word "marriage?"
Anyone who is creating this much chaos over a word has too much time on their hands.
The religious right should practice being "christlike" instead of the punitive, dictatorial way they've been behaving. Trust me. If Jesus is real, He's not at all happy with you people.
Frank Zappa said it best: "Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk" |
|
|
| HaydnPorter |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Higher I.Q.: Playmate > Homophobic Right Winger. |
Not to be a douchey snob, but I wouldn't be surprised, as I have a higher IQ than 98% of the world. |
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by HaydnPorter
Not to be a douchey snob, but I wouldn't be surprised, as I have a higher IQ than 98% of the world. |
I must be in the 2% but...........I just think it's funny that some wacko right-winger would assume that you are "dumb" because you are naked in a magazine but never take a good look in the mirror. In other words, you have common sense, something people take for granted. |
|
|
| NoName |
| By the way I'm AGAINST heterosexual marriage! 50% end in divorce and it's a waste of $$$$. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
I must be in the 2% but...........I just think it's funny that some wacko right-winger would assume that you are "dumb" because you are naked in a magazine but never take a good look in the mirror. In other words, you have common sense, something people take for granted. |
So true. As smokin' hot as she is, she'd be dumb NOT to be naked in a magazine!
:bigup: |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
Quote: Originally posted by taylorsn2101
According to the law marriage is a contract, not a sacrament as it is in the church. The reason gay people want the right to marry include tax breaks, insurance policies and many other benefits that married couples have. There is no logical reason for gay marriage to be illegal other than someone's irrational fear or hatred of people who are "different".
If you are so concerned about taking marriage seriously, why are you not trying to change the law to make divorce illegal? |
Very true and we have a separation of church and state in this country, so specific church laws do not apply to a legal marriage.
Why can't the Bible thumpers and bigots (usually one in the same) in this country give it a rest and just accept that the church has no jurisdiction over the rest of the country? The church is allowed to decide to personally not recognize gay marriage, but they shouldn't be able to impose their views and definitions of what a true marriage is on the rest of the country.
Jesus freaks, please go forth living your life the way you feel "god" wants you to so you can go to heaven and stop fucking trying to "save" everyone else. The Biblical information is there for everyone to heed if they see fit. Respect that many of us don't.
I'm no homo, but putting myself in their shoes, I sure as hell wouldn't want the only option for me to get married to be a dude!! |
|
|
| HaydnPorter |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
So true. As smokin' hot as she is, she'd be dumb NOT to be naked in a magazine!
:bigup: |
Ha, thanks!! |
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
So true. As smokin' hot as she is, she'd be dumb NOT to be naked in a magazine!
:bigup: |
She's alright looking. I'm into her mind and what's on the inside. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by HaydnPorter
Ha, thanks!! |
If you ever crave intellectual stimulation, I'm there for you.
Especially, if it's at a mansion party. :D |
|
|
| MLBoros72s |
Let the gays get married. Who the fuck are you to care?
And to any moron would actually attributes sacrament to an institution with a 50% dropout rate...just kill yourself. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Are you against the Civil Rights Act? Do you believe that Redneck States should be able to have Jim Crow laws if the majority votes to discriminate against the minority? |
I have problems with the national government when they step outside of their powers. It's one of those things where the goal is worthy but the way it was done was foul to the Constitution.
Jim Crow Laws would be against the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
Who's to say a polygamist is not "being who they are"? That's your SUBJECTIVE reasoning.
The DEFINITION of marriage is being changed here, not the ability to get married. It's a slap in the face to those who take the union of a man and woman seriously. No one is saying that homosexuals are not devoted to each other, but, marriage is a sacrament between man and woman. |
Yes..... that's how things are in the church. Let them stay that way. You and no one else in the non-secular community is being forced to marry someone of the same sex nor are you being forced to be cool with it.
And how would letting a dude and a dude get married stop the union of a man and a woman from being taken seriously? And on that same note, can you explain why the union between a man and a man shouldn't be taken seriously? But here are the rules. Since this is a state issue and not a church issue, you are not allowed to bring up anything to do with religion.
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
This is just the next step by the homosexual mafia to make heterosexuality viewed as abhorrant, abnormal behavior. |
Are you trying to make a joke? Please explain to us ignorant folks out here in the real world the steps on how this would work out. |
|
|
| NoName |
| Yeah, I got a great idea. Let some dude stay in the closet and marry some woman. Then he can destroy her life and possibly their kids. People, let's look at the macro not the micro! |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oscar Wilde
You can't use reason with bigots.
Their bias is based in ignorance, not intelligent discourse. |
Being against Gay Marriage does not make you a bigot. And, the issue here is not my personal beliefs on this issue. The issue is can a State make laws against Gay Marriage. Yes they can.
In this case California cannot. They must go the constitutional amendment road, but if they decide to reject gay marriage there is nothing that can prevent that. Most States do ban the practice. |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
| Yeah.... gay marriage... great! Let's start letting a man marry a man. then next he can marry a dog. then he can marry a table... when's it going to stop. people? |
|
|
| NoName |
| NickNuke is scared that once they allow gay marriage, the gov't will make him fuck a dude. |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
NickNuke is scared that once they allow gay marriage, the gov't will make him fuck a dude. |
That's how the "gay mafia" works, stupid!!!!
In a few years, if they see that you don't have some man mud on your helmet, you will wake up with a gay horse head in your bed. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by bskwizzle
Yeah.... gay marriage... great! Let's start letting a man marry a man. then next he can marry a dog. then he can marry a table... when's it going to stop. people? |
:rolleyes: X 1000
EDIT- Sorry about the rolleyes. I didn't pick up your sarcasm until I back read some of the posts.
|
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by bskwizzle
That's how the "gay mafia" works, stupid!!!!
In a few years, if they see that you don't have some man mud on your helmet, you will wake up with a gay horse head in your bed. |
I'm scared. NickNuke, hold me!! |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Being against Gay Marriage is not the only indication I am a bigot. |
we know. we know. |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
:rolleyes: X 1000 |
Yeah, probably.
Though that has been an argument I've heard. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by bskwizzle
Yeah, probably.
Though that has been an argument I've heard. |
And, by the way, I'm trying to get my Chesterfield hooked up with a nice Jewish boy. Know anybody? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by HaydnPorter
As a heterosexual person, how would you feel if your only option was to marry someone of the same gender? |
more like profoundly repressed homo...but you have the right idea :p |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
we know. we know. |
That is not what I wrote. You quoted me and then changed the words to whatever you wanted, without making it clear that you changed the words.
That should be criminal... as it is the word coward comes to mind. |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
I'm scared. NickNuke, hold me!! |
...as long are you aren't HAVING and holding, IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH!!! |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is not what I wrote. You quoted me and then changed the words to whatever you wanted, without making it clear that you changed the words. |
no shit, sherlock
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That should be criminal... as it is the word coward comes to mind. |
as a racist right wing authoritarian asshole - you think all types of benign things should be illegal. your head is not screwed on straight |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
no shit, sherlock
as a racist right wing authoritarian asshole - you think all types of benign things should be illegal. your head is not screwed on straight |
Can I assume you'd be in favor of criminalizing Right-Wing Authoritarianism? |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is not what I wrote. You quoted me and then changed the words to whatever you wanted, without making it clear that you changed the words.
That should be criminal... as it is the word coward comes to mind. |
Just as it should be criminal that Howard had Dolly Parton's audio book chopped up and changed to whatever he wanted. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Can I assume you'd be in favor of criminalizing Right-Wing Authoritarianism? |
morally yes...but that is meaningless. profoundly unamerican, racist, and fascist sentiments like those stumpy pukes all over the board should be met with execution - but that too would be unamerican. the only cure for that level of ignorance is knowledge |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
morally yes...but that is meaningless. profoundly unamerican, racist, and fascist sentiments like those stumpy pukes all over the board should be met with execution - but that too would be unamerican. the only cure for that level of ignorance is knowledge |
The problem with knowledge is that it requires comprehension to receive.
That is the two-edged sword. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
morally yes...but that is meaningless. profoundly unamerican, racist, and fascist sentiments like those stumpy pukes all over the board should be met with execution - but that too would be unamerican. the only cure for that level of ignorance is knowledge |
Show one racist comment I ever made...
You are a coward. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Show one racist comment I ever made...
You are a coward. |
tell us your opinion of muslims |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
tell us your opinion of muslims |
It is Islam that I hate.
Just like I hate/hated Communism, but not Russians.
Are we learning yet?
I was going to mention that Muslim is not a race but... |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It is Islam that I hate.
Just like I hate/hated Communism, but not Russians.
Are we learning yet?
I was going to mention that Muslim is not a race but... |
what about blacks? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It is Islam that I hate.
Just like I hate/hated Communism, but not Russians.
Are we learning yet?
I was going to mention that Muslim is not a race but... |
NOT TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS BUT RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IS SO SIMILAR TO RACISM THAT I'D AT LEAST PUT IT UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
what about blacks? |
:ps: OBAMA! :ps:
Does half black count? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
NOT TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS BUT RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IS SO SIMILAR TO RACISM THAT I'D AT LEAST PUT IT UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. |
I agree, Islam is intolerant. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
NOT TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS BUT RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IS SO SIMILAR TO RACISM THAT I'D AT LEAST PUT IT UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. |
his religious intolerance is a cover for his racism. word as law |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I agree, Islam is intolerant. |
something you know all about. intolerance that is :giggle: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
what about blacks? |
If you think I have said something that is against Blacks, show it. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If you think I have said something that is against Blacks, show it. |
you don't want to answer? :p |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you don't want to answer? :p |
Why would I?
Anyway, you were proving that I am a racist... go ahead, prove it. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Why would I? |
to deny that you are a racist. but I guess we don't need that since you are.
very big of you, stumpy
:) |
|
|
| jigzaw |
| Cool, I welcome the opportunity to go to the polls and reject the constitutional amendment. The last time this was put to California voters was 8 years ago. I don't think they'll ban gay marriage this time. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
to deny that you are a racist. but I guess we don't need that since you are.
very big of you, stumpy
:) |
I have already denied that.
You have accused me, now prove it. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I have already denied that.
You have accused me, now prove it. |
ok, what is your opinion of the blacks?
:) |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I have problems with the national government when they step outside of their powers. It's one of those things where the goal is worthy but the way it was done was foul to the Constitution.
Jim Crow Laws would be against the 14th Amendment. |
Were you against Miscegenation forced onto a public that didn't want to allow it? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
Cool, I welcome the opportunity to go to the polls and reject the constitutional amendment. The last time this was put to California voters was 8 years ago. I don't think they'll ban gay marriage this time. |
When Gay couples who are married leave California, they will not enjoy that status in very many places. Their marriage will be null and void if they take up residence in a State that bans Gay Marriage. That State need not recognize the marriage. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
ok, what is your opinion of the blacks?
:) |
I believe that people should be seen as individuals. You cannot judge a whole race of people by the color of their skin.
Anyway, prove that I am a racist. Remember you accused me of that? Get busy... |
|
|
| bskwizzle |
| hey stonewall. could you please tell us what it is about communism you hate then explain the same about islam? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I believe that people should be seen as individuals. You cannot judge a whole race of people by the color of their skin.
|
just say that you have no problem with blacks. why can't you?
:) |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I believe that people should be seen as individuals. |
all except muslims? how about mexicans? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by bskwizzle
hey stonewall. could you please tell us what it is about communism you hate then explain the same about islam? |
The worst thing about Communism is it's complete lack of freedom.
The worst thing about Islam is it's complete lack of freedom.
Both systems reject freedom. That is where the similarities end. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
just say that you have no problem with blacks. why can't you?
:) |
I think my last statement to you covered all races of people. I know how you like to play games and thus would begin a series of posts wanting me to comment on whatever peoples you wished to ask about.
Prove I am a racist... |
|
|
| jigzaw |
From Wiki: "In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans and/or Asians.[5] In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws.[6] Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" was repeately proposed in United States Congress, in 1871, in 1912-1913 and in 1928,[7][8] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them."
Sound familiar? Down to the proposals for a Constitutional Amendment. Inter-racial marriage was commonly thought to be prohibited by the Bible, just as homosexuality is thought to be now. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
From Wiki: "In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans and/or Asians.[5] In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws.[6] Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" was repeately proposed in United States Congress, in 1871, in 1912-1913 and in 1928,[7][8] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them."
Sound familiar? Down to the proposals for a Constitutional Amendment. Inter-racial marriage was commonly thought to be prohibited by the Bible, just as homosexuality is thought to be now. |
Yes, it is the EXACT same situation |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
From Wiki: "In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans and/or Asians.[5] In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws.[6] Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" was repeately proposed in United States Congress, in 1871, in 1912-1913 and in 1928,[7][8] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them."
Sound familiar? Down to the proposals for a Constitutional Amendment. Inter-racial marriage was commonly thought to be prohibited by the Bible, just as homosexuality is thought to be now. |
The Supreme Court will not rule that States must allow gay marriage. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
From Wiki: "In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans and/or Asians.[5] In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws.[6] Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" was repeately proposed in United States Congress, in 1871, in 1912-1913 and in 1928,[7][8] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them."
Sound familiar? Down to the proposals for a Constitutional Amendment. Inter-racial marriage was commonly thought to be prohibited by the Bible, just as homosexuality is thought to be now. |
Wow jig, this might be the first post I've seen from you that had something to offer!
Kudos!
More posts like that and people might start actually giving a shit....
:bigup: |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| I could give a fuck if fags marry . |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Yes, it is the EXACT same situation |
Not exactly the same. The Loving case dealt with race which is why the 14th amendment was adopted in the first place. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
morally yes...but that is meaningless. profoundly unamerican, racist, and fascist sentiments like those stumpy pukes all over the board should be met with execution - but that too would be unamerican. the only cure for that level of ignorance is knowledge |
:ps::roach:
As always, you my nig....!
However, I've come to the conclusion, and coming to this board has done nothing but strengthen it....that (at least without powerful medications to counter the faulty neuro-chemistry) the power of DENIAL is far too strong in the personality disorder of RWAuthoritarianism to be overcome by logic/knowledge/reality.
The only solution I see is ridicule. Make them repress their natures out of shame, like the KKK is forced to do, or pedophiles and other "functioning" sick people.
Make them societal pariahs.
Once done, it won't be such a bad existence for most of them. The VAST majority of lower level RWA's are basically just sheep anyway, content to "follow" the status quo.
Their power of denial will then be an asset!
You see the proof/truth of this in all the repressed homos they count in their "ranks". They not only "count", but they are even elevated/reach to the highest of levels. :giggle:
No, once the scab is pulled off, these people will live/thrive quite nicely in a world not governed in anyway by their unhealthy psychologies.
So come on people!!! Join me in the ridicule!
The sooner right wingers like that Kevin James douche are called "Cunts" by everyone, the sooner we can evolve as a society and as human beings!
:yes: :ps: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Higher I.Q.: Playmate > Homophobic Right Winger. |
Higher I.Q.: :shit: > Homophobic Right Winger. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I think my last statement to you covered all races of people. |
so you have no problem with blacks and mexicans? yes or no? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:ps::roach:
As always, you my nig....!
However, I've come to the conclusion, and coming to this board has done nothing but strengthen it....that (at least without powerful medications to counter the faulty neuro-chemistry) the power of DENIAL is far too strong in the personality disorder of RWAuthoritarianism to be overcome by logic/knowledge/reality. |
absolutely. you can't learn what don't want to know |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
I could give a fuck if fags marry . |
I know. WGAS? |
|
|
| skipdrums |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The California Supreme Court has just opened up a can of worms. The residents of the State will overturn this ruling via a State Constitutional Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court will never create this right nationwide.
Equal Protection of the law does not mean that marriage must be expanded to allow for gay marriage. It is not discriminatory. Gays can still get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Same as everyone else. |
Marriage in the eyes of the law is a binding contract between two adults. Why can't two adults of the same sex get married? What difference does sex make?
Same-sex marriage bans are by definition, DISCRIMINATORY. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by skipdrums
Marriage in the eyes of the law is a binding contract between two adults. Why can't two adults of the same sex get married? What difference does sex make?
Same-sex marriage bans are by definition, DISCRIMINATORY. |
Marriage is, as far as the State goes a way to ensure or facilitate offspring. That is the State interest in the institution of marriage.
It is more than a simple contract. One of the complaints of those against gay marriage is that it will change the definition of marriage to the one you have described. Just a contract... |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Marriage is, as far as the State goes a way to ensure or facilitate offspring. That is the State interest in the institution of marriage.
It is more than a simple contract. One of the complaints of those against gay marriage is that it will change the definition of marriage to the one you have described. Just a contract... |
So what if people dont want to have children? Should they be urged not to marry? What if the woman or man is infertile? Should they be barred from marriage? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Also, you still have not answered how this is in any way different to Miscegenation. Also, since most people were supporters of miscegenation laws, they have been struck down. Do you think miscegenation laws should still be valid so long as that's what the majority of people want? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
So what if people dont want to have children? Should they be urged not to marry? What if the woman or man is infertile? Should they be barred from marriage? |
The 14th Amendment is what prevents miscegenation laws. It was a racial issue and the reason the laws were struck down was the 14th Amendment.
This gay marriage issue is different because this is not about race.
If people do not want to have children that does not mean you stop marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
