ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Where did you get the idea that they passed Prop. 8 to protect the word? Clearly that's not the case. They did it to continue to discriminate against gay couples. Had they wanted to protect the word, they would have said "gay people can have the same legal rights as straight people, they just cannot call their union 'marriage'."
You still haven't made a case for why we ought to invent another word for something that we already have a perfectly serviceable word in use for.
Yet that's all you talk about.
No, but I don't see a need to even waste squat on some posters.
Get informed, lose the absurd bias that appears to be blinding you, and then revisit the issue.
You are aware the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that STATES cannot pass laws that relate to race and marriage. The Federal Government has never had such laws on the books.
I'd be careful being too snarky with your responses. Your comments are not serving you well.
A lower the divorce rate: Premarital counseling reduces divorce risk
Yeah, the ones that show what a laughable position you hold.
GOING to be and WILL be are two entirely different things, when talking about the ballot box. The OP's story asserts that the mind of America is "made up" which suggests a PRESENT tense, not a future tense. Regardless of your personal opinions regarding the legitimacy of the campaign in california, the clear undisputable fact is that the majority of voters there voted to disallow gay marriage. That's fact. You can attempt to degrade that fact in any fashion you wish, but you can't actually CHANGE that fact. The reality is that over 26 states, meaning more than half the states in the nation, have statutes and or constitutional measures that ban same sex marriage. While general polls are showing a definitive uptick and majority over all that support it, POLLS don't make laws...voting does, and the voting record and reality does not paint anywhere near as clear cut of a reality as the OP's story is being made.
I agree completely that if the courts don't mandate it we'll see a majority of states recognizing same sex marriage in the coming decades. Absolutely that will happen. But to claim that the American Public has "made up their mind" in favor of it today is a rather ridiculous premise given the reason the case is even able to be heard right now, the status in the majority of states, and the mixed record it has at the ballot box.
Wow.....just shows how little you understand the SCOTUS and what "CASELAW" is. After Loving States cannot pass laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. This is based on Federal caselaw...which is based on the US Constitution.
Learn to read.
Says the one with the absurd bias, who seems to be getting hot and bothered whenever someone points it out.
Let's see. You actually wrote that people don't want to allow gay couples to use the word "marriage". That's absurd. Gay couples can call it anything they want. So clearly, you are very misinformed about the subject and probably aren't the best judge of what is laughable.
Question: Why does something called a civil ceremony exist, and why does it apply when the action takes place in a government building and is conducted by a authorized representative of the court?
I can read just fine....thank you. Perhaps you should take a conlaw course and then get back to us. It kinda helps you know what you are talking about to understand how the SCOTUS works.
But you've already said you don't want the government to get out of it, you still want something by which the government provides rights and benefits! If you wanted the government to get out of it completely, you wouldn't want civil unions either!
The civil unions part was only for those morons that have an issue with the wording because they are all for civil unions, but not marriage for gay couples. Does it make sense? No, but it makes them feel like they won something.
Nice strawman. Since when did my comment have anything to do with that assertoin? My comment was just relating to the story in the OP's assertion that the notion of gay marriage already "won" by winning over the view of the american public. Read the words that are written, not the ones you bigotedly imagine are present when you see some elephants to the left of the persons post.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with you, speaking literally. But the article is not speaking "literally". The article is making the argument that there has been an exponential shift in America's attitudes over the last five years. In essence, America's mind IS made up. Right-wing groups are going to continue to fight, but the war is over. Gay marriage is an inevitability, the only question that remains if it will be by ballot or by Court decree.
Hmmmm. I read the words and it was YOU that mentioned the voters of California was the reason the case was before SCOTUS, since you didn't mention it, I asked the question.
The voters, not the Governor, brought this to SCOTUS.Hmmmm. I read the words and it was YOU that mentioned the voters of California was the reason the case was before SCOTUS, since you didn't mention it, I asked the question. Care to answer it without implying that bigotry nonsense?
.The voters, not the Governor, brought this to SCOTUS.
Well the last appeals ruling shot down prop8, which would have meant ssm would be legal, so obviously the party filing an appeal to SCOTUS would be in opposition to ssm.Which voters are you talking about: All, for SSM or against SSM?
I think its pretty crazy that in the "land of the free" conservatives can justify restricting the rights of other Americans. Seems a little mixed upto me.
So your up for multiple spouses and killing unborn babies? How about good old fashioned bestiality?
So your up for multiple spouses and killing unborn babies? How about good old fashioned bestiality?
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?