- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
kinda like how civil rights spread their lies and deciet? "Gay marriage is an inalienable right!". That's the biggest lie in the books right now.
thing is though, what's marriage got to do with equal protection? If I decide to have a civil union with a stool, does that mean I can get a marriage certificate? What do you think my boss is going to tell me when I say "My wife, the stool, broke a leg and is in the hospital, so I can't come to work today!"?Sorry DW....Courts have never addressed equal protection in such a ridiculous simple fashion. Nice try though.
It was meant specifically for those(OKgrannie, to name one) who always use the supreme court as if it's some "flawless entity" where all opinions stem from and are all correct. not necessarily you.
Marriage is a right according to the SCOTUS.
thing is though, what's marriage got to do with equal protection? If I decide to have a civil union with a stool, does that mean I can get a marriage certificate?
nono, interracial and heterosexual marriages are a right. Know why? Because, under their opinions, marriage spurs reproduction. "Gay marriage" involves no reproduction, therefore the state has no interest in those marriages.Marriage is a right according to the SCOTUS.
thing is though, what's marriage got to do with equal protection? If I decide to have a civil union with a stool, does that mean I can get a marriage certificate? What do you think my boss is going to tell me when I say "My wife, the stool, broke a leg and is in the hospital, so I can't come to work today!"?
nono, interracial and heterosexual marriages are a right. Know why? Because, under their opinions, marriage spurs reproduction. "Gay marriage" involves no reproduction, therefore the state has no interest in those marriages.
But you gotta admit...it was a pretty funny way to point it out. :2wave:
spurs reproduction, not REQUIRED for reproduction, geez.marriage spurs reproduction? serious? How are all those unmarried teenagers getting pregnant then?
This is a minor setback, but I'm honestly not worried. This issue is not going to go away anytime soon. Homosexuals in this country will continue to fight tooth and nail until they get the rights that they want. Just like any other civil rights issue it is going to take time.
And I guess we'll be getting it right, also, in 2010.
Jerry, this is not the right decision...
devaluing a class of citizens based on the moral disapproval of their private lives is so far from a conservative principle I am surprised you aren't gnashing your teeth over it.
Sorry Zyph....but that is exactly what Prop 8 was about. The California Supreme Court specifically ruled that bans on gay marriage violated the California Constitution, thus recognizing it as a Constitutional right.
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment in response to that. Unfortunately, in California, Constitutional Amendments do not require a 2/3's majority and require only a simple 50%+1 vote. Thus, in California, Constitutional rights can be eliminated by a simple majority.
....if not tomorrow....then the day after that...or the day after that....
Gay marriage is inevitable...but the last bastions of discrimination will cling on to the bitter end.
Further, the right to marry someone of one's choice is a right under california law. Sharp v Perez.
Until they get it right.
You mean until they get it THIER way? It's hardly a "right" or "wrong" issue but more one of interpretation.
The idea of marriage has never really been an issue until GAY activists decided they wanted to re-define it and force their views on the majority.
nono, interracial and heterosexual marriages are a right. Know why? Because, under their opinions, marriage spurs reproduction. "Gay marriage" involves no reproduction, therefore the state has no interest in those marriages.
But with same sex marriage all gay men have the exact same marital rights and choices as all heterosexual men.
My fault, I keep forgetting your routine in trying to obfuscate and confuse people by talking about "Constitutional" rights with the Big C implying the actual United States Constitution when in reality you're talking about California's state constitution, which is only a right within the state of California and is not what the vast majority of people, of which I'm sure you know and is why you use it, think of when you talk about "Constitutional Rights".
And I guess we'll be getting it right, also, in 2010.
Jerry, this is not the right decision...devaluing a class of citizens based on the moral disapproval of their private lives is so far from a conservative principle I am surprised you aren't gnashing your teeth over it.
I'm sorry, but who defined marriage as ONLY between a man and woman in the first place? I don't see anyone re-defining anything. I do, however, see people trying to give it a far more specific definition so that it excludes certain people.
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?