Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[USFREEDOM911]

There is no discrimination, against hetero or homosexuals. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It is not the union of two people of the same sexual orientation, that is something else.

And I doubt it is going to be changed anytime soon, the most liberal president in history will not endorse it, the most liberal state in America passed a ban on it. Across America, voters have rejected it at the ballot box, and now we appear to have a case heading to the SCOTUS on it, and I predict the SCOTUS will overturn the appeals court ruling, because Prop 8 is constitutional.

And just for the record, two people who love each other can presently live in a state of matrimony, even if they are of the same sex. There is no law prohibiting a gay couple from living together as "husband" and "wife" that I am aware of, they just can't obtain a state marriage certificate. They can be "married" all day long... they can have "weddings" and throw rice... make a scrapbook... the works! They can even buy a house together with a white picket fence and a Yorkie dog.

Just promise all of us here, that when same sex marriages are recognized by the Government; that you won't do something stupid, like harm yourself or anyone else.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just promise all of us here, that when same sex marriages are recognized by the Government; that you won't do something stupid, like harm yourself or anyone else.

Oh, I've said from the start of my replies to this thread, I'm fine with the elected representatives of government voting to enact whatever law they want, I am only opposed to this being mandated through the courts, against the will of the people. If Congress passes a Gay Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination against same sex couples who seek to marry, then fine! We have no problem! Contrary to popular opinion, (I guess because of the moniker), I am not an intolerant bigot who can't accept change. What I can't accept, is activist judges making things into law, despite the will of the people. I won;t tolerate it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh, I've said from the start of my replies to this thread, I'm fine with the elected representatives of government voting to enact whatever law they want, I am only opposed to this being mandated through the courts, against the will of the people. If Congress passes a Gay Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination against same sex couples who seek to marry, then fine! We have no problem! Contrary to popular opinion, (I guess because of the moniker), I am not an intolerant bigot who can't accept change. What I can't accept, is activist judges making things into law, despite the will of the people. I won;t tolerate it.

Against the will of which people?
I ask because you don't seem to have a problem if it's something that goes contrary to homosexual people; but you care a great deal if it's against the will of heterosexual people.

It is the Courts responsibility to enact change, if something is in violation of someone's rights or is contray to the Constitution.

 

[poet]

Oh, I've said from the start of my replies to this thread, I'm fine with the elected representatives of government voting to enact whatever law they want, I am only opposed to this being mandated through the courts, against the will of the people. If Congress passes a Gay Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination against same sex couples who seek to marry, then fine! We have no problem! Contrary to popular opinion, (I guess because of the moniker), I am not an intolerant bigot who can't accept change. What I can't accept, is activist judges making things into law, despite the will of the people. I won;t tolerate it.

Right. Just like I won't tolerate people legislating my civil rights. The majority cannot dictate the rights of the minority.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Against the will of which people?
I ask because you don't seem to have a problem if it's something that goes contrary to homosexual people; but you care a great deal if it's against the will of heterosexual people.

It is the Courts responsibility to enact change, if something is in violation of someone's rights or is contray to the Constitution.

Against the will of the people who vote.

How the fuck would you know what I have a problem with? You don't know me, you won't ever know me, stop pretending to think for me.

Homosexuals make up about 12% of the population, and if this particular issue comes down to what homosexuals want and what heterosexuals want, guess who is going to lose?

You fucking goddamn goofy moron, NO it is NOT the courts responsibility to enact change!!!!!

No one is having a right violated here, we've already established that gay people and straight people both get to do the same thing and are restricted from doing the same thing! In order to make this "contrary to the constitution" you have to establish that, and you haven't!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Against the will of the people who vote.

How the fuck would you know what I have a problem with? You don't know me, you won't ever know me, stop pretending to think for me.

Homosexuals make up about 12% of the population, and if this particular issue comes down to what homosexuals want and what heterosexuals want, guess who is going to lose?

You fucking goddamn goofy moron, NO it is NOT the courts responsibility to enact change!!!!!

No one is having a right violated here, we've already established that gay people and straight people both get to do the same thing and are restricted from doing the same thing! In order to make this "contrary to the constitution" you have to establish that, and you haven't!

So people who vote to reinstate slavery should be allowed to have this re-enacted?

This may surprise you; but homosexuals vote also.

Your percentage shows exactly what the courts are for and that's so the majority don't put things into place that violate the rights of the minority.

Yes they are, when it's determined that a correction needs to be put into place.

You've tried to establish that nothing is wrong; but have failed to convince anyone, but yourself.

I worry about your well being, when it's determined that same sex marriage is legal and allowed.

 

[Rune]

No, I said they have the same privilege as straight people when it comes to marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it's not prohibited to gays, and straight people aren't allowed to marry same sex. The right and privilege to marry is the same for both.

For the record, I can't marry the person I am in love with and want to spend the rest of my life with, because she doesn't consent, and doesn't even know I exist. Are you saying that we can pass a law where I actually get to marry a supermodel? Hey... you might get my attention there!!

Bravo?

 

[Rune]

I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.

The truth finaly outs it's ugly self.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.

Would those be the same "tax breaks and government entitlements" that heterosexual couples have?

Because that appears to be discrimination.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So people who vote to reinstate slavery should be allowed to have this re-enacted?

What the fuck are you yammering about now? Slavery was outlawed in America 147 years ago, moron. Where the fuck do you get this stuff? Can you not stick to the subject at hand?

This may surprise you; but homosexuals vote also.

Why would that surprise me?

Your percentage shows exactly what the courts are for and that's so the majority don't put things into place that violate the rights of the minority.

Nope... that's NOT what the courts are for. Sorry.

This is where the left have it all wrong, and can't be reasoned with. The courts are not there to enforce whatever extremists want. In any event, there is no right being violated here, we've been over this already, gay people have the exact same right as everyone else. Oh, you can keep pretending they have a right that has been denied, and you can keep lying to people and telling them that gays are having their rights violated, but you are factually inaccurate and spreading an outright lie.

Yes they are, when it's determined that a correction needs to be put into place.

That's not how the court works. What the fuck do you mean "determine?" WHO determines? Some judge who is appointed for life? Sorry, this isn't a monarchy or kingdom, one man doesn't get to "determine" a goddamn thing here! If you want something passed into law, you have to initiate a campaign to lobby for it, and eventually have Congress pass legislation. Once that happens, then the courts can make rulings to uphold whatever law you pass. But you haven't passed any law! You want to turn America into a social liberal dictatorship! FUCK OFF!

You've tried to establish that nothing is wrong; but have failed to convince anyone, but yourself.

OH... Something is MOST DEFINITELY wrong! I've tried to establish no such thing. I have stated correctly, that gay people aren't being denied anything that anyone else isn't also denied. I have stated correctly, that there is no basis for finding Prop 8 unconstitutional. I have explained why I do not support "GAY Marriage" but I am reasonable enough to accept civil unions for consenting adults. And through all this, you have waded in and proclaimed me full of shit and popped off your stupid mouth, and that's about it. As for debate points, you've scored ZERO!

I worry about your well being, when it's determined that same sex marriage is legal and allowed.

Well you need not worry about my well being, I assure you, regardless of the outcome for "Gay Marriage" I will be just fine. Are you going to be the same when we have a DOMA-style constitutional amendment, putting an end to this matter forever? Because, at this point, that is the more likely scenario than having Gay Marriage. Keep pushing... that's what will go down, eventually.

 

[dixon76710]

Would those be the same "tax breaks and government entitlements" that heterosexual couples have?

Because that appears to be discrimination.

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements given to heterosexual couples because they have the potential of procreation. If you want want to give them to homosexuals, youve lost the only justification we had for not making it available to any two consenting adults who desire them.

 

[poet]

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements given to heterosexual couples because they have the potential of procreation. If you want want to give them to homosexuals, youve lost the only justification we had for not making it available to any two consenting adults who desire them.

Hey, Sparky.....the provision of "tax breaks" and "entitlements" isn't predicate on "the potential of procreation"...they are given, whether the couples decide to have children or not.
Find the document which supports your claim. You have this idea that everything is based on procreation or the potential for it. It's not.

 

[dixon76710]

The truth finaly outs it's ugly self.

How so? What do you find ugly?

 

[dixon76710]

Hey, Sparky.....the provision of "tax breaks" and "entitlements" isn't predicate on "the potential of procreation"...they are given, whether the couples decide to have children or not.
Find the document which supports your claim. You have this idea that everything is based on procreation or the potential for it. It's not.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

 

[Rune]

How so? What do you find ugly?

Really?

Originally Posted by dixon76710



I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.

Your inability to see your own selfishness underwhelms me.

EVERY SINGLE CROCK OF SHIT ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE IN THIS THREAD FALLS BEFORE THIS STATEMENT, THE ONE TRUE THING YOU HAVE SAID.

Your sole concern is that gay marriage could possibly affect your tax rate. This has to be true since it is the only true thing you have said so far.
Look to Jesus who you falsely follow for an example of how to live you piece of human excrement.

 

[Rune]

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Are you a certified idiot?
What possible relevance do these cites offer? Are you too stupid to answer a question with your own words?
Since when does wikipedia determine the course of law in The U.S.?

 

[poet]

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Oh, please. It's a misnomer. Like the Romans couldn't make mistakes. Matrimony, from the mater, meaning mother, and mony meaning state or condition, doesn't take in consideration men, or childless marriages. Children are had, quite often, since time immemorial, without the benefit of marriage...so there goes that theory out the window. LOL.

 

[dixon76710]

Really?

Originally Posted by dixon76710



I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.

Your inability to see your own selfishness underwhelms me.

EVERY SINGLE CROCK OF SHIT ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE IN THIS THREAD FALLS BEFORE THIS STATEMENT, THE ONE TRUE THING YOU HAVE SAID.

Your sole concern is that gay marriage could possibly affect your tax rate. This has to be true since it is the only true thing you have said so far.
Look to Jesus who you falsely follow for an example of how to live you piece of human excrement.

Babbling fool, Im not married and gay marriage will have no effect upon my tax rate.

 

[dixon76710]

Oh, please. It's a misnomer. Like the Romans couldn't make mistakes. Matrimony, from the mater, meaning mother, and mony meaning state or condition, doesn't take in consideration men, or childless marriages. Children are had, quite often, since time immemorial, without the benefit of marriage...so there goes that theory out the window. LOL.

Doesnt effect my theory at all. A requirement of procreation is something you have imagined in my theory.

 

[Rune]

Doesnt effect my theory at all. A requirement of procreation is something you have imagined in my theory.

No idiot, he saw it in your words.