Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Yurt said:
dixie...are you opposed to 'liberal' judges declaring interracial marriage to be law of the land? are you proposing that so long as the majority denies equal rights, that no court can overturn the law based on our constitution?
Click to expand...

Okay, you know what, I am so tired of hearing this stupid comparison, I am going to answer your question. I am opposed to a federal court judge making ANYTHING the law of the land, including interracial marriages... even though they have NOTHING in common with "Gay Marriage" which is an oxymoron. Our system is built to work a certain way, and it has worked for over 200 years, so I don't approve of shortcuts or end-arounds. I believe what the overwhelming majority of society should take precedent over a partisan judge in ALL cases, because that is DEMOCRACY, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can take virtually ANYTHING and twist it into a prejudice against someone, if you try hard enough. We're not a society who sits on it's thumbs and lets judges determine what the law is.... sorry... that sounds like how they live in Russia.

Now before you get all emotive and wound up about the interracial marriage thing... If gay people were a RACE of people, who were brought here on Queer Ships against their will and enslaved for a century, followed by another century of oppression, then I might have a bit more sympathy for the plight of the gay.... but that isn't the history here. They are not a race of people, they make the choice to live a gay lifestyle, whether they were "born gay" or not, and they simply don't have the right to adopt and pervert a sacred religious practice as their own, against the overwhelming will of the people. This is the PERFECT example of why we DON'T allow judicial tyranny. You are never going to settle this issue by judicial fiat, or by trying to dress it up as a civil rights issue.

You say, but dixie, it's not right that the majority can deny Gay Marriage, just as they shouldn't have denied interracial marriage, and we needed the courts to step in. I say you are making an invalid comparison, because marriage is the union of a man and woman, and bans on interracial marriage weren't made on the basis of marriage being perverted into something else and called marriage. What if some judge decreed that Animal Marriage is law of the land? How would that be any different? Or Child Marriage? I think an overwhelming majority would not approve of animal or child marriage, but you are saying a single judge should be able to use his own personal viewpoint, and proclaim it law of the land and fully constitutional.... and that's okay with you!

If your argument has validity, the Constitution and our rights, mean absolutely NOTHING because a judge can rule them out of existence on a whim. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, you've already said judges rulings trump majority rule, so you've fucked yourself. Now, I realize, this is all hunky-dory as long as you have LIBERAL judges, forcing LIBERAL ideals down our throats, but how are you going to feel when the judges are far right-wing, and start doing the same thing? You gonna be okay with that? Remember, you won't get to decide what's constitutional anymore, it's up to a judge who has a totally different view than you. Ready for that, idiot?
 
Dixie said:
Okay, you know what, I am so tired of hearing this stupid comparison, I am going to answer your question. I am opposed to a federal court judge making ANYTHING the law of the land, including interracial marriages... even though they have NOTHING in common with "Gay Marriage" which is an oxymoron. Our system is built to work a certain way, and it has worked for over 200 years, so I don't approve of shortcuts or end-arounds. I believe what the overwhelming majority of society should take precedent over a partisan judge in ALL cases, because that is DEMOCRACY, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can take virtually ANYTHING and twist it into a prejudice against someone, if you try hard enough. We're not a society who sits on it's thumbs and lets judges determine what the law is.... sorry... that sounds like how they live in Russia.

Now before you get all emotive and wound up about the interracial marriage thing... If gay people were a RACE of people, who were brought here on Queer Ships against their will and enslaved for a century, followed by another century of oppression, then I might have a bit more sympathy for the plight of the gay.... but that isn't the history here. They are not a race of people, they make the choice to live a gay lifestyle, whether they were "born gay" or not, and they simply don't have the right to adopt and pervert a sacred religious practice as their own, against the overwhelming will of the people. This is the PERFECT example of why we DON'T allow judicial tyranny. You are never going to settle this issue by judicial fiat, or by trying to dress it up as a civil rights issue.

You say, but dixie, it's not right that the majority can deny Gay Marriage, just as they shouldn't have denied interracial marriage, and we needed the courts to step in. I say you are making an invalid comparison, because marriage is the union of a man and woman, and bans on interracial marriage weren't made on the basis of marriage being perverted into something else and called marriage. What if some judge decreed that Animal Marriage is law of the land? How would that be any different? Or Child Marriage? I think an overwhelming majority would not approve of animal or child marriage, but you are saying a single judge should be able to use his own personal viewpoint, and proclaim it law of the land and fully constitutional.... and that's okay with you!

If your argument has validity, the Constitution and our rights, mean absolutely NOTHING because a judge can rule them out of existence on a whim. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, you've already said judges rulings trump majority rule, so you've fucked yourself. Now, I realize, this is all hunky-dory as long as you have LIBERAL judges, forcing LIBERAL ideals down our throats, but how are you going to feel when the judges are far right-wing, and start doing the same thing? You gonna be okay with that? Remember, you won't get to decide what's constitutional anymore, it's up to a judge who has a totally different view than you. Ready for that, idiot?
Click to expand...


Shorter Dixie: I disagree with the concept of judicial review established over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison.
 
Dixie said:
Okay, you know what, I am so tired of hearing this stupid comparison, I am going to answer your question. I am opposed to a federal court judge making ANYTHING the law of the land, including interracial marriages... even though they have NOTHING in common with "Gay Marriage" which is an oxymoron. Our system is built to work a certain way, and it has worked for over 200 years, so I don't approve of shortcuts or end-arounds. I believe what the overwhelming majority of society should take precedent over a partisan judge in ALL cases, because that is DEMOCRACY, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can take virtually ANYTHING and twist it into a prejudice against someone, if you try hard enough. We're not a society who sits on it's thumbs and lets judges determine what the law is.... sorry... that sounds like how they live in Russia.

Now before you get all emotive and wound up about the interracial marriage thing... If gay people were a RACE of people, who were brought here on Queer Ships against their will and enslaved for a century, followed by another century of oppression, then I might have a bit more sympathy for the plight of the gay.... but that isn't the history here. They are not a race of people, they make the choice to live a gay lifestyle, whether they were "born gay" or not, and they simply don't have the right to adopt and pervert a sacred religious practice as their own, against the overwhelming will of the people. This is the PERFECT example of why we DON'T allow judicial tyranny. You are never going to settle this issue by judicial fiat, or by trying to dress it up as a civil rights issue.

You say, but dixie, it's not right that the majority can deny Gay Marriage, just as they shouldn't have denied interracial marriage, and we needed the courts to step in. I say you are making an invalid comparison, because marriage is the union of a man and woman, and bans on interracial marriage weren't made on the basis of marriage being perverted into something else and called marriage. What if some judge decreed that Animal Marriage is law of the land? How would that be any different? Or Child Marriage? I think an overwhelming majority would not approve of animal or child marriage, but you are saying a single judge should be able to use his own personal viewpoint, and proclaim it law of the land and fully constitutional.... and that's okay with you!

If your argument has validity, the Constitution and our rights, mean absolutely NOTHING because a judge can rule them out of existence on a whim. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, you've already said judges rulings trump majority rule, so you've fucked yourself. Now, I realize, this is all hunky-dory as long as you have LIBERAL judges, forcing LIBERAL ideals down our throats, but how are you going to feel when the judges are far right-wing, and start doing the same thing? You gonna be okay with that? Remember, you won't get to decide what's constitutional anymore, it's up to a judge who has a totally different view than you. Ready for that, idiot?
Click to expand...

The real question is; are you ready for a judge who has a different view then yours, making that decision? :awesome:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You're allowed to marry someone who you're in love with, who loves you, and wants to marry you.
Homosexuals aren't allowed the same privilige.

Why do you want to be treated special?
Click to expand...

The single mother and grandmother down the street, who have joined together to raise their children/grandchildren together for nearly a decade love each other and want to marry.

The mother, grandmother and the gays simply choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone has the same rights. Just no special rights like you want for the homosexuals you speak of.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The real question is; are you ready for a judge who has a different view then yours, making that decision? :awesome:
Click to expand...

That's the question I asked you idiots!

Let's say a right-wing radical social conservative managed to get elected president, and through some twist of fate, liberal judges started dropping like flies, and were replaced by social conservatives... and let's assume the Congress is also social conservative, maybe they swept in on a wave of popularity or whatever, but those are the circumstances.... Now you have courts made up of radical social conservatives, who have decided it is time to "undo" some of the social damage done by liberals through the years.... they start repealing and overturning one thing after another, which we have all come to know as law of the land... How long are you going to be perfectly alright with that happening?
 
Granule said:
Uh, how is homosexual behavior appropriate and polygamist behavior not?
Click to expand...

What is homosexual behavior? Surely, you're implying promiscuity, of which heterosexuals are equally guilty. Marriage, as I see it...is between two people, not 3 or 4 or more.
Any woman that consents to a marriage with multiple wives involved is a fool. Any man that desires a marriage consisting of more than one spouse is greedy.
 
poet said:
What is homosexual behavior? Surely, you're implying promiscuity, of which heterosexuals are equally guilty. Marriage, as I see it...is between two people, not 3 or 4 or more.
Any woman that consents to a marriage with multiple wives involved is a fool. Any man that desires a marriage consisting of more than one spouse is greedy.
Click to expand...

Revealing, how you, a homosexual, think "homosexual behavior" implies "promiscuity". I would have thought it implies sexual relations with someone of the same sex.
 
poet said:
What is homosexual behavior? Surely, you're implying promiscuity, of which heterosexuals are equally guilty. Marriage, as I see it...is between two people, not 3 or 4 or more.
Any woman that consents to a marriage with multiple wives involved is a fool. Any man that desires a marriage consisting of more than one spouse is greedy.
Click to expand...

Then why do you feel the need to have it sanctioned by the state?
 
Dixie said:
Then why do you feel the need to have it sanctioned by the state?
Click to expand...

Because, idiots, such as yourself, feel that marriage needs to be "protected" (DOMA) from "people", who only want to enjoy the same privileges (and rights) enjoyed by millions, who are "traditionally" married. I have found the person I want to spend the rest of my life with....for what reason should that not be recognized, and, in fact, sanctioned?
Think before you write.
 
poet said:
Because, idiots, such as yourself, feel that marriage needs to be "protected" (DOMA) from "people", who only want to enjoy the same privileges (and rights) enjoyed by millions, who are "traditionally" married. I have found the person I want to spend the rest of my life with....for what reason should that not be recognized, and, in fact, sanctioned?
Think before you write.
Click to expand...

You should think before you write, moron, you just said that marriage is between two people, then you turn on a dime and insist it be sanctioned by society... which one is it? Does it need to be sanctioned or is it something that's between two people, like you said?
 
dixon76710 said:
The single mother and grandmother down the street, who have joined together to raise their children/grandchildren together for nearly a decade love each other and want to marry.

The mother, grandmother and the gays simply choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone has the same rights. Just no special rights like you want for the homosexuals you speak of.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to be treated differrent, Dixie?
 
Dixie said:
That's the question I asked you idiots!

Let's say a right-wing radical social conservative managed to get elected president, and through some twist of fate, liberal judges started dropping like flies, and were replaced by social conservatives... and let's assume the Congress is also social conservative, maybe they swept in on a wave of popularity or whatever, but those are the circumstances.... Now you have courts made up of radical social conservatives, who have decided it is time to "undo" some of the social damage done by liberals through the years.... they start repealing and overturning one thing after another, which we have all come to know as law of the land... How long are you going to be perfectly alright with that happening?
Click to expand...

Why can't you answer the question, Dixie?
Are you afraid, or just a coward?

Are you ready for a judge who has a different view then yours, making that decision?
 
dixon76710 said:
Afraid I dont know what you are babbling on about now. Try focusing upon my words and ignore the assertions you have imagined.
Click to expand...

I was focusing on the assertions that you have imagined and it appears that you feel that gays marrying are going to harm children, but can't say how, that gays marrying are going to affect your marriage, but can't say how, etc., etc., etc.!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top