If that's the case, you'll adddress post # 172, which, as the court's majority justification for the ruling, IS the the topic of this thread.I've been on topic.
Until they get it right.
Actually no, it's because a person who knows how to debate properly provides facts to back up their assertions. I didn't realize you were new to this.
Once again, relating your personal views on what a majority of religions do believe doesn't make your argument very credible. :roll:
They got it right. Gay marriage has been drop kicked by the voters. Kicked to the curb. Finally, the will of the people will stand. I'm sure Perez Hilton is quite depressed that democracy held true, but for those of us who support the constitution and respect the voting process it is good news indeed.
Someone who knows how to debate doesn't constantly ask obtuse questions or expect OTHERS to prove the OBVIOUS either; they actually bring their own opinions and facts to the argument in support of their counter opinion, something I might add you rarely do.
Rather than debate, your method is to constantly ask OTHERS to support their opinions rather than express one of your own or bring a counter point to the argument; its pretty lame.
The only thing more lame is your selective outrage.
BUT... in this case, the question before the court had NOTHING to do with gay rights or gay marriage or how you choose who to sleep with -- indeed, it has EVERYTHING to do with the procedure under which the CA constitution was amendment. In that, its is hard to see how the CA court's decision was anything but correct.The slim margin Prop 8 won by was not a drop kick. And respect for the constitution would involve respect for its most basic principle, that being that all men are equal.
They got it right. Gay marriage has been drop kicked by the voters. Kicked to the curb. Finally, the will of the people will stand. I'm sure Perez Hilton is quite depressed that democracy held true, but for those of us who support the constitution and respect the voting process it is good news indeed.
| Moderator's Warning: |
Well....if Constitutional rights are subject to a simple majority vote, then it should be on the ballot every year in order to reflect what the will of the majority is.
Views of gay marriage are changing rapidly. The younger generation overwhelmingly approves of gay marriage. It is inevitable.
The slim margin Prop 8 won by was not a drop kick. And respect for the constitution would involve respect for its most basic principle, that being that all men are equal.
Nice try though.
Yeah, a 52-48 margin is really the same as being "drop kicked by the voters." :roll:
That's down from a 61-38 margin on a similar measure back in 2000. In other words, it's gone from a 23 point margin to a 4 point margin in a mere eight years. There is a very good chance that it will be reversed in 2010 if it is on the ballot again.
If you choose to be with a man instead, that is your choice.
How funny that liberals haven't sang this same tune when discussing the recent election of Obama. Claims of winning by a large margin and this other baloney. Now all of sudden the margin isn't that big now that the outcome desired is different. How convenient.
Is marriage a right ?...a Constitutional right ?
Actually yes it is a right the SCOTUS ruled in Loving vs. Virginia.
Not at all...its called respect for others views. It is possible, believe it or not, to have your own personal views but not feel the need to subject everyone else to them (something that many cannot grasp).
For instance, you can personally believe that Abortion, for example, is wrong and still be pro-choice because you do not believe that you have the right to force others to accept your viewpoint.
You can be anti-gay marriage, but nevertheless be against prop 8 because despite your views, you understand that it is wrong to force that view upon others.
Obama simply understands that his right to his views end when it infringes upon the rights of others. That is a concept that you probably cannot understand.
yea, that's what I meant.
But either way, will this fight ever end?
Wow, bro if you think marriage is about being free....man you don't understand the issue at all.
10 years from now, people will look back in dismay that there even was a 'fight'.
IMO--it's a sad day in CA history. But the reality is, there are some very densely populated counties in this state that are far removed, literally and figuratively, from the great UC campuses.
So true, everything north of Humbolt County on the coast is redneck country...might as well be northern Idaho. The whole Central and San Joaquin Valley regions are redneck country too. Might as well be the midwest.10 years from now, people will look back in dismay that there even was a 'fight'.
IMO--it's a sad day in CA history. But the reality is, there are some very densely populated counties in this state that are far removed, literally and figuratively, from the great UC campuses.
Since when was marriage a "right”; does the constitution refer to it?
I always thought of marriage as a formal commitment between a man and a woman who wished to start a family, usually conducted by a minister under the eyes of God and witnesses. When did it become a "right?"
Oh yeah, when gay rights activists wallowing in emotional hysterics and hyperbole decided it should be and determined ALL society should now accept THEIR definition of marriage! :rofl
Since when was marriage a "right”; does the constitution refer to it?
Truth Detector said:I always thought of marriage as a formal commitment between a man and a woman who wished to start a family, usually conducted by a minister under the eyes of God and witnesses. When did it become a "right?"
Truth Detector said:Oh yeah, when gay rights activists wallowing in emotional hysterics and hyperbole decided it should be and determined ALL society should now accept THEIR definition of marriage! :rofl
There is no constitutional right specifically to gay marriage. The only court cases heard by the Supreme Court that signifies a constitutional right to marriage refers to that of a traditional male and female marriage. The Supreme Court has turned down any case thus far to my knowledge dealing with same sex marriage. As such, until its either:
1) In the constitution
2) Decided so by the Supreme Court
Same Sex Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is your opinion that it is, but it is not a fact it is. The only FACT is that marriage as defined between a man and a woman is a constitutional fact. This remains the case until such time as one of the above two things happen. Until then, its just your OPINION that it is a constitutional right.
In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], is a California Supreme Court case with the dual holding that "statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny" and the existing "California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."
On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?