Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

see post above this. If it was a Christian polygamy story, I would single out the Christian sect that is abusing their beliefs. Honor killings seem to be a Muslim thing.

And both Muslim and Christian sect seem to be a religious thing. It's a lot more effective to attack the ring leader than it is the drug pushers.

Raising it up to the level of religion is the hyperbole part. As I stated before, billions of people have been abused by governments. So would you make the statement that without government these abuses would not have occurred? Yes, when religion and/or governments get too powerful, people will abuse that power. It is does not follow that if we eliminated government or religion that all those problems will go away. Evil people are ultimately responsible.

Government is a completely different argument. It is necessary but on what level? Federal, state, personal. If we ever get good at it (evolve) and it is operating effectively on a personal level then we wouldn't need government either.Religion, however, we do not need it at all.

 

[jon_mx]

Government is a completely different argument. It is necessary but on what level? Federal, state, personal. If we ever get good at it (evolve) and it is operating effectively on a personal level then we wouldn't need government either.Religion, however, we do not need it at all.

You may not, but billions of people do. A finite life is not an easy reality to deal with. It has been an issue that people had since the beginning of time. In reality, religion does more good than harm, but you perfer to just look at how religion is abused. Your failure to realize the good is part of the problem here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You have this backwards. There needs to be a an argument made in favor of gay marriage.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", just marriage. The debate is about who the state has a legitimate state interest to deny a marriage license. The argument that there is no such interest seems to have been sufficient everywhere sexual orientation has fallen under "equal protection" laws (sometime indirectly under gender discrimination) and seems to have failed when it couldn't.

 

[dparker713]

For example,Rowe vs Wade: Isn't the right to life in the constitution. Wasn't it a primary concern by our founding fathers ? So how did Judges twist the constitution to exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers wanted? This goes to the core about judicial activism. That laws are created out of whole cloth. Once these laws are made there is no checks and balances over the court by the legislative and presidential branches (a constitutional amendment standard is so high that it isn't a realistic check and balance.) And checks and balances were important to our founding fathers. Our country was not designed to be ruled by judges. Rather those make laws are there by the consent of the voters. Because judges are not voted in and in many cases have life time appointments this completely abrogates the "consent of the governed" principle that our Representative Republic is based on.

No, there is no Constitutional right to life. The preamble conveys no substantive right. Provided due process is followed, there is no restriction preventing the government from taking your life. Also, the Justices did not adopt the position that life begins at conception, so that has nothing to do with judicial activism. The judicial activism portion of the case was the Justices parsing the term liberty in the 14th amendment to include a right to privacy regarding medical and reproductive decisions. Also, you may believe the barrier to an amendment is too high, but it's meant to be high. Yes, passing an amendment is difficult, but for a large part there has not been a recent well organized attempt to pass one.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

That posting was so awesome that I will refrain from muddling this thread. Please try and lead by example and through action how a true christian should behave. amen.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Issues like this make it much clearer why we fail to get anything substantive accomplished as a nation. Rather than resolving this issue rationally and in a logical way, we get bogged down in the minutiae.

This is a clear cut case. There is no compelling argument not to have same sex marriages. This issue is crystal clear. Now consider issues that are are more debatable and it seems obvious that people are more beholden to their ideology than they are in the desire to solve problems or consider evidence and arguments

In a rational way.

At least these litmus test issues demonstrate who is willing to be reasonable and who wants to cling to bad arguments and dogma.

You have this backwards. There needs to be a an argument made in favor of gay marriage.

Okay, how about this semantic adjustment: we shouldn't exclude people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation. There's no need for "gay marriage" in this case.On what basis would you argue that we should exclude homosexuals from marrying?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can you give an example of a law created by judges out of whole cloth?

Murder, Rape, Larceny, Robbery, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, Conversion, Nuisance, False Imprisonmen, Intential Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Intential Misrepresentation, Neglicence, Strict Liability, Product Liability. Thats just a very small list.

I don't know about whole cloth, but yeah, the judges in merry old England devised the common law that became the basis for the American legal system as well. I don't think that's what Konotoy meant, though. He wasn't saying that 12th-century English judges violated the U.S. Constitution by making rape illegal. I think he had in mind stuff like striking down Prop 8, or invalidating the Texas law that prohibited abortion. But I'm not completely certain, which is why an example would help.

 

[dparker713]

You have this backwards. There needs to be a an argument made in favor of gay marriage.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", just marriage. The debate is about who the state has a legitimate state interest to deny a marriage license. The argument that there is no such interest seems to have been sufficient everywhere sexual orientation has fallen under "equal protection" laws (sometime indirectly under gender discrimination) and seems to have failed when it couldn't.

Insufficient everywhere? You mean in a select state courts and in ONE federal court? Restricting marriage to a man and a woman has withstood judicial challenges in many courts. The easy arguments in CA are that there is no injury (equal rights all around) and a rejection of sexual orientation as a classification in general (human sexuality as a continuum as opposed to binary options) and for equal protection purposes in particular. There is a current status quo, as such those seeking a change in the status quo have the initial burden of proof.

 

[dparker713]

Can you give an example of a law created by judges out of whole cloth?

Murder, Rape, Larceny, Robbery, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, Conversion, Nuisance, False Imprisonmen, Intential Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Intential Misrepresentation, Neglicence, Strict Liability, Product Liability. Thats just a very small list.

I don't know about whole cloth, but yeah, the judges in merry old England devised the common law that became the basis for the American legal system as well. I don't think that's what Konotoy meant, though. He wasn't saying that 12th-century English judges violated the U.S. Constitution by making rape illegal. I think he had in mind stuff like striking down Prop 8, or invalidating the Texas law that prohibited abortion. But I'm not completely certain, which is why an example would help.

Well, a Constitutional right to privacy and marriage are two laws of the land that did not exist before judicial opinions. Im pretty sure unconscionability in contract law was also fairly recently devised.

 

[tonydead]

Government is a completely different argument. It is necessary but on what level? Federal, state, personal. If we ever get good at it (evolve) and it is operating effectively on a personal level then we wouldn't need government either.Religion, however, we do not need it at all.

You may not, but billions of people do. A finite life is not an easy reality to deal with. It has been an issue that people had since the beginning of time. In reality, religion does more good than harm, but you perfer to just look at how religion is abused. Your failure to realize the good is part of the problem here.

All this good you keep talking about can be done without religion. A mighty god is a living man.A finite life is easy and beautiful. The only reason it's feared is because of religion. We we will evolve past the religion paradigm.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You have this backwards. There needs to be a an argument made in favor of gay marriage.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", just marriage. The debate is about who the state has a legitimate state interest to deny a marriage license. The argument that there is no such interest seems to have been sufficient everywhere sexual orientation has fallen under "equal protection" laws (sometime indirectly under gender discrimination) and seems to have failed when it couldn't.

Insufficient everywhere? You mean in a select state courts and in ONE federal court? Restricting marriage to a man and a woman has withstood judicial challenges in many courts. The easy arguments in CA are that there is no injury (equal rights all around) and a rejection of sexual orientation as a classification in general (human sexuality as a continuum as opposed to binary options) and for equal protection purposes in particular. There is a current status quo, as such those seeking a change in the status quo have the initial burden of proof.

The status quo was that most states (with a few exceptions) and the federal government relatively recently added language to their laws to limit who could obtain a marriage license such that same sex couples would be excluded. The lack of justification for such changes is what is being challenged. As you know this takes a while.

 

[dparker713]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. ?

That posting was so awesome that I will refrain from muddling this thread. Please try and lead by example and through action how a true christian should behave. amen.

I seriously doubt that Prop 8 is the first time a state constitution has added discrimination. Nearly all laws discriminate in some way. And while it did limit the right to marry, gay couples still have a means to legally make a binding commitment to one another. (Neither marriage or civil unions require love nor are they a legal acknowledgement thereof)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well, a Constitutional right to privacy and marriage are two laws of the land that did not exist before judicial opinions. Im pretty sure unconscionability in contract law was also fairly recently devised.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[dparker713]

You have this backwards. There needs to be a an argument made in favor of gay marriage.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", just marriage. The debate is about who the state has a legitimate state interest to deny a marriage license. The argument that there is no such interest seems to have been sufficient everywhere sexual orientation has fallen under "equal protection" laws (sometime indirectly under gender discrimination) and seems to have failed when it couldn't.

Insufficient everywhere? You mean in a select state courts and in ONE federal court? Restricting marriage to a man and a woman has withstood judicial challenges in many courts. The easy arguments in CA are that there is no injury (equal rights all around) and a rejection of sexual orientation as a classification in general (human sexuality as a continuum as opposed to binary options) and for equal protection purposes in particular. There is a current status quo, as such those seeking a change in the status quo have the initial burden of proof.

The status quo was that most states (with a few exceptions) and the federal government relatively recently added language to their laws to limit who could obtain a marriage license such that same sex couples would be excluded. The lack of justification for such changes is what is being challenged. As you know this takes a while.

The DOMA and other recently enacted legal definitions of marriage were merely codifications of the status quo, not a change in it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Exclusion of gays marrying: "This is how we've done it for ages."

Sorry if this isn't compelling in the slightest.

 

[dparker713]

Well, a Constitutional right to privacy and marriage are two laws of the land that did not exist before judicial opinions. Im pretty sure unconscionability in contract law was also fairly recently devised.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That amendment only means what the Supreme Court says it means. And at no point has the Supreme Court used that amendment to justify non-enumerated rights.

 

[timschochet]

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Far too general a definition, at least for me. I believe both obstinately and intolerantly that child molesters are scum and should be put away for life. Does that make me a bigot?

 

[jon_mx]

Government is a completely different argument. It is necessary but on what level? Federal, state, personal. If we ever get good at it (evolve) and it is operating effectively on a personal level then we wouldn't need government either.Religion, however, we do not need it at all.

You may not, but billions of people do. A finite life is not an easy reality to deal with. It has been an issue that people had since the beginning of time. In reality, religion does more good than harm, but you perfer to just look at how religion is abused. Your failure to realize the good is part of the problem here.

All this good you keep talking about can be done without religion. A mighty god is a living man.A finite life is easy and beautiful. The only reason it's feared is because of religion. We we will evolve past the religion paradigm.

That is a ridiculous statement on so many levels. All animals fear death. Always will. There has been no evolutionary change in man where we have somehow moved beyond religion. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your hatred of all things religious is irrational.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Okay, how about this semantic adjustment: we shouldn't exclude people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation.

As long as we're playing semantics, it should be noted that Prop 8 does not, on its face, discriminate based on sexual orientation. It does not authorize county clerks to employ their gaydar to decide whom to issue licenses to. As far as orientation goes, Prop 8 is playing don't-ask-don't-tell.Prop. 8, rather, is an exercise in unequal legal treatment on the basis of sex. It isn't saying "You can't marry that person because you're gay." It's saying "You can't marry that person because you're a woman." Whether you get to marry your partner depends on whether the state is satisfied with your genitals, not with what you want to use them for.

It is well settled that a state may not discriminate on sex without a pretty good reason. (It needs more than just a rational basis — although the Prop 8 supporters flunked even that lower standard.) If the Supreme Court can throw out a law that merely requires slightly different drinking ages for men and women, why shouldn't a lower court take the hint and throw out a law requiring entirely different marriage partners?

 

[MongoL3]

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Far too general a definition, at least for me. I believe both obstinately and intolerantly that child molesters are scum and should be put away for life. Does that make me a bigot?

I keep waiting for the liberals to start sticking up for them like they do with the radical muslims. Oh well, maybe 3 or 4 years down the road. They arent "PC" enough....yet

 

[timschochet]

dparker, of course your definition of the law is a conservative one and many people of great intellectual merit will agree with you, including, as a matter of importance, Antonin Scalia. But I am hoping that more liberal approach will prevail.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well, a Constitutional right to privacy and marriage are two laws of the land that did not exist before judicial opinions. Im pretty sure unconscionability in contract law was also fairly recently devised.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That amendment only means what the Supreme Court says it means. And at no point has the Supreme Court used that amendment to justify non-enumerated rights.

So?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Okay, how about this semantic adjustment: we shouldn't exclude people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation.

As long as we're playing semantics, it should be noted that Prop 8 does not, on its face, discriminate based on sexual orientation. It does not authorize county clerks to employ their gaydar to decide whom to issue licenses to. As far as orientation goes, Prop 8 is playing don't-ask-don't-tell.Prop. 8, rather, is an exercise in unequal legal treatment on the basis of sex. It isn't saying "You can't marry that person because you're gay." It's saying "You can't marry that person because you're a woman." Whether you get to marry your partner depends on whether the state is satisfied with your genitals, not with what you want to use them for.

A distinction without a practical difference. This is why I'm not a lawyer. I think I'd shoot myself in the head if I had to play these games.

 

[dparker713]

Exclusion of gays marrying: "This is how we've done it for ages."Sorry if this isn't compelling in the slightest.

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

 

[timschochet]

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Far too general a definition, at least for me. I believe both obstinately and intolerantly that child molesters are scum and should be put away for life. Does that make me a bigot?

I keep waiting for the liberals to start sticking up for them like they do with the radical muslims. Oh well, maybe 3 or 4 years down the road. They arent "PC" enough....yet

I always debate with myself the question of replying seriously to you. But- most liberals do not stick up for radical muslims. They stick up for moderate muslims who get grouped along with the radical ones by people like yourself.

 

[dparker713]

dparker, of course your definition of the law is a conservative one and many people of great intellectual merit will agree with you, including, as a matter of importance, Antonin Scalia. But I am hoping that more liberal approach will prevail.

Whereas I would much rather the matter be resolved by legislatures and referendums.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The DOMA and other recently enacted legal definitions of marriage were merely codifications of the status quo, not a change in it.

Status quo is not a legitimate reason to codify discrimination.

 

[timschochet]

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

This answer is legalistically true, but it is also shameful and very very weak IMO. What you are effectively saying is that gays have the right to live out their lives as lies if they choose, hidden in the closet, pretending to be someone they are not.

 

[dparker713]

Well, a Constitutional right to privacy and marriage are two laws of the land that did not exist before judicial opinions. Im pretty sure unconscionability in contract law was also fairly recently devised.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That amendment only means what the Supreme Court says it means. And at no point has the Supreme Court used that amendment to justify non-enumerated rights.

So?

So to this point that amendment has been completely irrelevant to the Constitutional rights to privacy and marriage. They have been justified by parsing the word liberty within the 14th amendment.

 

[timschochet]

dparker, of course your definition of the law is a conservative one and many people of great intellectual merit will agree with you, including, as a matter of importance, Antonin Scalia. But I am hoping that more liberal approach will prevail.

Whereas I would much rather the matter be resolved by legislatures and referendums.

In America, issues of individual rights that have a direct bearing on the Constitution are ultimately decided by the judiciary. This has been our history, and is proper. Of all the conservative arguments in the last few days, the most disingenous (IMO) is that this judge is ignoring the will of the majority. The will of the majority regarding this issue is irrelevant.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Exclusion of gays marrying: "This is how we've done it for ages."Sorry if this isn't compelling in the slightest.

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

Other than clarifying the precise language of Prop 8, do you feel as though this improves the argument? Allowing gays to marry anyone they wish as long as that person is of the opposite sex removes, for most, the entire purpose of marrying.

 

[dparker713]

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

This answer is legalistically true, but it is also shameful and very very weak IMO. What you are effectively saying is that gays have the right to live out their lives as lies if they choose, hidden in the closet, pretending to be someone they are not.

In what way, shape, or form is a publicly recognized civil uinion that bestows all the same rights that California bestows to marriage hidden in the closet, requiring people to pretend to be someone they are not.

 

[dparker713]

The DOMA and other recently enacted legal definitions of marriage were merely codifications of the status quo, not a change in it.

Status quo is not a legitimate reason to codify discrimination.

Legally it often is.

 

[jon_mx]

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

This answer is legalistically true, but it is also shameful and very very weak IMO. What you are effectively saying is that gays have the right to live out their lives as lies if they choose, hidden in the closet, pretending to be someone they are not.

No one is asking them to hide in the closet or not to live how they choose. There are really not that many benefits a gay couple can't get outside a piece of paper which says marriage.

 

[MongoL3]

Im still trying to figure out how they get that "accent"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In what way, shape, or form is a publicly recognized civil uinion that bestows all the same rights that California bestows to marriage hidden in the closet, requiring people to pretend to be someone they are not.

It requires them to legally pretend that their marriage is not a marriage. And someone posting such silly nit picky legal should know that California does not have "civil unions" but "domestic partnerships" and that these do not provide "all the same rights" as marriage, even those bestowed by the state.

 

[badmojo1006]

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

This answer is legalistically true, but it is also shameful and very very weak IMO. What you are effectively saying is that gays have the right to live out their lives as lies if they choose, hidden in the closet, pretending to be someone they are not.

No one is asking them to hide in the closet or not to live how they choose. There are really not that many benefits a gay couple can't get outside a piece of paper which says marriage.

So pretty much all you are saying is that you don't mind letting gay people have every right of a marriage, but not the name?Just trying to clarify

 

[dparker713]

Exclusion of gays marrying: "This is how we've done it for ages."Sorry if this isn't compelling in the slightest.

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

Other than clarifying the precise language of Prop 8, do you feel as though this improves the argument? Allowing gays to marry anyone they wish as long as that person is of the opposite sex removes, for most, the entire purpose of marrying.

Outside of select situations like immigration, the law never inquires into the motivations of the marrying parties, and as such those motivations are largely irrelevant. In California, gays can avail themselves of an equivalent governmentally sanctioned union that confers the same rights. So the argument is entirely changed. Now you need to prove an injury to the rights of gays. What, exactly, is the STATE doing to harm gays?

 

[tonydead]

Government is a completely different argument. It is necessary but on what level? Federal, state, personal. If we ever get good at it (evolve) and it is operating effectively on a personal level then we wouldn't need government either.

Religion, however, we do not need it at all.

You may not, but billions of people do. A finite life is not an easy reality to deal with. It has been an issue that people had since the beginning of time. In reality, religion does more good than harm, but you perfer to just look at how religion is abused. Your failure to realize the good is part of the problem here.

All this good you keep talking about can be done without religion. A mighty god is a living man.A finite life is easy and beautiful. The only reason it's feared is because of religion. We we will evolve past the religion paradigm.

That is a ridiculous statement on so many levels. All animals fear death. Always will. There has been no evolutionary change in man where we have somehow moved beyond religion. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your hatred of all things religious is irrational.

I do not fear death. Many don't fear it: link. I'd love to give you that gift, just open your mind. Some of us have evolved past religion.

 

[MongoL3]

No gay person is excluded from marrying when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Each gay person has the exact same rights to marry as every straight person. The rights are applied evenly to all individuals. The definition has a disperate impact on gay individuals, but they are not excluded from marrying by such laws.Do you prefer instead: "With or without the ability to marry a person of the same sex, every person in California can receive all the same benefits from the state of California"

This answer is legalistically true, but it is also shameful and very very weak IMO. What you are effectively saying is that gays have the right to live out their lives as lies if they choose, hidden in the closet, pretending to be someone they are not.

No one is asking them to hide in the closet or not to live how they choose. There are really not that many benefits a gay couple can't get outside a piece of paper which says marriage.

So pretty much all you are saying is that you don't mind letting gay people have every right of a marriage, but not the name?Just trying to clarify

I think most gay people dont really care about the benefits. I think they want "justification". I think they want all those years where they were getting bashed this is there chance to show the world they are in the right with how they live. I think they want to snub there nose at society and this ruling allows them to have that. Kind of a crazy theory but its mine. I own it.

 

[jon_mx]

So pretty much all you are saying is that you don't mind letting gay people have every right of a marriage, but not the name?Just trying to clarify

That is pretty much where we are at. There are a few rights that they can't get yet, but it is not the everyday stuff. The law should not stop gays from pursuing their happiness, but it is just not marriage.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What, exactly, is the STATE doing to harm gays?

Discriminating against them by not allowing same sex couples to marry. This isn't hard.You can wrap yourself up in this idea that the law provides some contorted method by which gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, but that's not true. In order to realize this, they would have to abandon who they are.This may allow the legal arguments to persist, but as a practical matter, it's an embarrassing sham, and no one should even try to endorse or defend it.

 

[MongoL3]

What, exactly, is the STATE doing to harm gays?

Discriminating against them by not allowing same sex couples to marry. This isn't hard.You can wrap yourself up in this idea that the law provides some contorted method by which gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, but that's not true. In order to realize this, they would have to abandon who they are.This may allow the legal arguments to persist, but as a practical matter, it's an embarrassing sham, and no one should even try to endorse or defend it.

Im cool with it.

 

[dparker713]

In what way, shape, or form is a publicly recognized civil uinion that bestows all the same rights that California bestows to marriage hidden in the closet, requiring people to pretend to be someone they are not.

It requires them to legally pretend that their marriage is not a marriage. And someone posting such silly nit picky legal should know that California does not have "civil unions" but "domestic partnerships" and that these do not provide "all the same rights" as marriage, even those bestowed by the state.

You're right, I should remember its a domestic partnership.I am discussing the law. The law REQUIRES nit picking. Semantics ARE the law. Language is imperfect and human existence is complicated. Therefore, there are two general legal schools of thought: as much precision in language as possible and general parameters that define judicial discretion. As is befitting a country founded by rejects and rebels, the US legal system employs both at the same time. Hope that clears things up.

Anywho, the California Supreme Court has ruled that every single difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage in CA is merely procedural and not substantive when they declared the definition of marriage in California in violiation of the state constitution's equal protection clause.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What, exactly, is the STATE doing to harm gays?

Discriminating against them by not allowing same sex couples to marry. This isn't hard.You can wrap yourself up in this idea that the law provides some contorted method by which gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, but that's not true. In order to realize this, they would have to abandon who they are.This may allow the legal arguments to persist, but as a practical matter, it's an embarrassing sham, and no one should even try to endorse or defend it.

Im cool with it.

That's terrific, Peens.

 

[jon_mx]

So pretty much all you are saying is that you don't mind letting gay people have every right of a marriage, but not the name?Just trying to clarify

That is pretty much where we are at. There are a few rights that they can't get yet, but it is not the everyday stuff. The law should not stop gays from pursuing their happiness, but it is just not marriage.

So you are wanting to deny the word "marriage" to two other people.Mighty crappy of ya.

They can call themselves whatever they like. I happen not to think it is a marriage, but I wish them luck. Why do they need my acceptance of their relationship and why is it so important to you that you have to personally attack me on every post? It is kind of freaky. Are you just one person or is that some shared alias that is just used for attacking me? Just asking.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Okay, how about this semantic adjustment: we shouldn't exclude people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation.

As long as we're playing semantics, it should be noted that Prop 8 does not, on its face, discriminate based on sexual orientation. It does not authorize county clerks to employ their gaydar to decide whom to issue licenses to. As far as orientation goes, Prop 8 is playing don't-ask-don't-tell.Prop. 8, rather, is an exercise in unequal legal treatment on the basis of sex. It isn't saying "You can't marry that person because you're gay." It's saying "You can't marry that person because you're a woman." Whether you get to marry your partner depends on whether the state is satisfied with your genitals, not with what you want to use them for.

A distinction without a practical difference. This is why I'm not a lawyer. I think I'd shoot myself in the head if I had to play these games.

The difference, legally, is that it's more okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation than it is to discriminate based on sex.Casting the issue as one of sex-discrimination — which, on its face, is what it is — is legally advantageous to gay-marriage proponents.

 

[tonydead]

Government is a completely different argument. It is necessary but on what level? Federal, state, personal. If we ever get good at it (evolve) and it is operating effectively on a personal level then we wouldn't need government either.

Religion, however, we do not need it at all.

You may not, but billions of people do. A finite life is not an easy reality to deal with. It has been an issue that people had since the beginning of time. In reality, religion does more good than harm, but you perfer to just look at how religion is abused. Your failure to realize the good is part of the problem here.

All this good you keep talking about can be done without religion. A mighty god is a living man.A finite life is easy and beautiful. The only reason it's feared is because of religion. We we will evolve past the religion paradigm.

That is a ridiculous statement on so many levels. All animals fear death. Always will. There has been no evolutionary change in man where we have somehow moved beyond religion. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your hatred of all things religious is irrational.

I do not fear death. Many don't fear it: link. I'd love to give you that gift, just open your mind. Some of us have evolved past religion.

Oh, and by the way, if you have god and heaven and everything......why do you still fear death???

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In what way, shape, or form is a publicly recognized civil uinion that bestows all the same rights that California bestows to marriage hidden in the closet, requiring people to pretend to be someone they are not.

Anywho, the California Supreme Court has ruled that every single difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage in CA is merely procedural and not substantive when they declared the definition of marriage in California in violiation of the state constitution's equal protection clause.

So having a legal "separate but equal" alternative has already been ruled insufficient to providing "the same rights that California bestows to marriage", yet you keep asking about the harm? I thought that if only the Prop 8 people had competent lawyers there was an easy argument for their side? When are you going to get around to making it?

 

[tonydead]

So pretty much all you are saying is that you don't mind letting gay people have every right of a marriage, but not the name?

Just trying to clarify

That is pretty much where we are at. There are a few rights that they can't get yet, but it is not the everyday stuff. The law should not stop gays from pursuing their happiness, but it is just not marriage.

So you are wanting to deny the word "marriage" to two other people.Mighty crappy of ya.

They can call themselves whatever they like. I happen not to think it is a marriage, but I wish them luck. Why do they need my acceptance of their relationship and why is it so important to you that you have to personally attack me on every post? It is kind of freaky. Are you just one person or is that some shared alias that is just used for attacking me? Just asking.

Jesus Christ. Every comment that doesn't agree with your religious brainwashed upbringing doesn't constitute attack against you. You poor fool.