Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you don't know that and the legislature didn't know that, hence why they changed the law...and why CA were so afraid they had to pass prop 22
you don't know that and the legislature didn't know that, hence why they changed the law...and why CA were so afraid they had to pass prop 22
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I mentioned my kids as an example of how parents teach their children. You then asked me a direct question about what I taught my children.
Now, I am asking you a direct question about what you teach your children concerning sodomy and homosexuality.
Come on, SM, you asked the question and got an answer, why not answer the same question you asked.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Yurt:what is intriguing about your stance is that i must admit gay marriage was not permitted prior to the supreme is that your own research clearly and unequivocally said that a legislative committee determined that the law was not clear on whether gay marriage was banned and therefore changed the law in 1977 to outright ban gay marriage. further, in 2000, the citizens of CA were so unsure of the 1977 ban that they passed another law, prop 22, that further amended/changed the family law code in CA. no, you need to admit gay marriage wasn't permitted because everyone, including the California Supreme Court which threw out the restrictions against gay marriage, admits that gay marriage was never permitted in California before it's decision....
those are the facts. let me ask you some important questions that will help narrow this down to a resolution:
1. did CA and other states amend/change their constitutions. yes or no
2. did CA change/amend the code in 1977 to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. no, it wasn't a change.....marriage was restricted to men and women before 1977 as well...
3. what was the purpose of prop 22 in CA (2000)? if gay marriage was already banned, why was prop 22 needed? because the California SC had thrown out the state law that prohibited gay marriage
i would appreciate an answer to the fourth question as it goes to the very heart of your claim that you don't support gay marriage because it changes the law.
no it doesn't....and I already told you I would ignore further attempts to raise irrelevant issues
btw....those gay marriages performed in CA during the 5 months before prop 8 passed are still valid marriages....yes they are....they were performed during that very brief interval when gay marriages were permitted in the state under the changes imposed by the court
those are the facts. let me ask you some important questions that will help narrow this down to a resolution:
1. did CA and other states amend/change their constitutions. yes or no
2. did CA change/amend the code in 1977 to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. no, it wasn't a change.....marriage was restricted to men and women before 1977 as well...
3. what was the purpose of prop 22 in CA (2000)? if gay marriage was already banned, why was prop 22 needed? because the California SC had thrown out the state law that prohibited gay marriage
i would appreciate an answer to the fourth question as it goes to the very heart of your claim that you don't support gay marriage because it changes the law.
no it doesn't....and I already told you I would ignore further attempts to raise irrelevant issues
btw....those gay marriages performed in CA during the 5 months before prop 8 passed are still valid marriages....yes they are....they were performed during that very brief interval when gay marriages were permitted in the state under the changes imposed by the court
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I know it and you know it, but you keep pretending it isn't true so you have something to argue about.......they passed Prop 22 because the SC threw out the law which prohibited gay marriage, obviously......
why don't you admit that no gays could get married in California in 1976, or 1966 or 1956 or 1922, or 1897?.......or any other year?....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I didn't get a simple yes or no answer as I asked, so I'll return the favor to you, and here's my answer: don't mention my children again.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
PMP
if you're not going to be intellectually honest and admit you support the scotus decision changing the ban on interracial marriages, which of course is in direct contrast to your argument opposing gay marriage, thus your intellectual dishonesty....
then there is nothing further to discuss with you, as your dishonesty makes it impossible to have an honest discussion about this. if you care to explain why you (most likely, hence your unwillingness to answer the question) think it is not intellectually dishonest to support the change there, but then say you are against gay marriage here due to change, then i'm all ears. if you are going to continue to cowardly avoid the discussion at the heart of your issues, then you need not reply.
if you're not going to be intellectually honest and admit you support the scotus decision changing the ban on interracial marriages, which of course is in direct contrast to your argument opposing gay marriage, thus your intellectual dishonesty....
then there is nothing further to discuss with you, as your dishonesty makes it impossible to have an honest discussion about this. if you care to explain why you (most likely, hence your unwillingness to answer the question) think it is not intellectually dishonest to support the change there, but then say you are against gay marriage here due to change, then i'm all ears. if you are going to continue to cowardly avoid the discussion at the heart of your issues, then you need not reply.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
sorry, Yurt, but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend the two have anything to do with each other.....beyond that I won't reply....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that have to do with YOUR stance....you are against gay marriage because it changes the law...you are against CA supreme court changing the law....
HOWEVER, you are intellectually dishonest by supporting the scotus decision to change the law banning interracial marriages...you cant argue in support of that change and then argue against change in the law for gay marriage....because to do so, undermines your whole point about the law having to change for homosexuals....
they relate entirely to your point on this subject, that being, changes in the law.....
and the two do in fact relate, and i guarantee you that if this makes it to the SCOTUS, they will cite loving v. virginia....if you don't think so, you're plain stupid
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol, I thought you were claiming they didn't change it....
it's quite fundamental, Yurt, I have explained it several times.....you didn't need to change the definition of marriage to correct the improper restriction on bi-racial marriage....the only thing keeping a black man and a white woman from marrying was a law that discriminated against them on the basis of race.....the same is not true of a white man and a black man.....they can't get married simply because the relationship between two men isn't marriage, never has been in this country or this century (or four)....it isn't simply a matter of eliminating a discriminatory law, it's a matter of changing the meaning of a social norm which has existed for longer than this country has.....
it's like saying that we're going to change the meaning of "driver's license" to mean "practice medicine", because it's wrong to say someone who can drive can't do open heart surgery.....that's different than saying a black person can't get a driver's license.....
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
not two of them together....that has never been recognized.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
they reversed the CA law banning gay marriage, the first instance of that appeared in 1977....do try and keep up
it is discrimination. it discriminates based on gender preference. what you arrogantly keep missing here is, constitutions have CHANGED to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. CA had to AMEND their constitution to ban gay marriage, that is a fact. 26 other states have had to do the same because they knew their constitution did not define marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
arguing that "its just what people believed" is nonsense. the law matters, not what people think. homosexuality was way far back in the closet until only recently, so it is no surprise why no one ever bothered to try and get married. it wasn't socially acceptable.....just like interracial marriages.
scotus changed the definition of marriage for the states. that is a fact. marriage prior to the decision was only between members of the same RACE. now, we have marriage only between members of the opposite SEX.
it is clear to me you're going to bury your head in the sand and claim loving v. virginia did not redefine or change marriage. that is completely false....i suggest you read the last paragraph of the majority opinion i quoted for you a couple posts above....change race with gender or sex.....and you will finally see that Yurt is right.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and in those states, interracial marriage had never been recognized.....
i think you're finally coming around and seeing the truth
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
they reversed the CA law banning gay marriage, the first instance of that appeared in 1977.... no, the first instance of it showed up in the 1800s, I already proved that to you....and it remained banned through 2000....
CA had to AMEND their constitution to ban gay marriage, that is a fact. - yes, after the SC threw out the ban they had previously had in place.....gay marriage was permitted for 5 whole months....
26 other states have had to do the same because they knew their constitution did not define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. - really?.....name one that didn't prohibit gay marriage before the constitution change...
scotus changed the definition of marriage for the states. that is a fact. marriage prior to the decision was only between members of the same RACE. now, we have marriage only between members of the opposite SEX. no it didn't.....marriage meant the relationship between a man and a woman before Loving and after....states defined marriage the same way, they were prevented from blocking access to marriage based on race....
it is clear to me you're going to bury your head in the sand and claim loving v. virginia did not redefine or change marriage. that is completely false....i suggest you read the last paragraph of the majority opinion i quoted for you a couple posts above....change race with gender or sex.....and you will finally see that Yurt is right. - you simple aren't right....
CA had to AMEND their constitution to ban gay marriage, that is a fact. - yes, after the SC threw out the ban they had previously had in place.....gay marriage was permitted for 5 whole months....
26 other states have had to do the same because they knew their constitution did not define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. - really?.....name one that didn't prohibit gay marriage before the constitution change...
scotus changed the definition of marriage for the states. that is a fact. marriage prior to the decision was only between members of the same RACE. now, we have marriage only between members of the opposite SEX. no it didn't.....marriage meant the relationship between a man and a woman before Loving and after....states defined marriage the same way, they were prevented from blocking access to marriage based on race....
it is clear to me you're going to bury your head in the sand and claim loving v. virginia did not redefine or change marriage. that is completely false....i suggest you read the last paragraph of the majority opinion i quoted for you a couple posts above....change race with gender or sex.....and you will finally see that Yurt is right. - you simple aren't right....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and in those states, interracial marriage had never been recognized.....
i think you're finally coming around and seeing the truth
what I see is you wasting a lot of my time on something you made up just for the fun of it.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao.....CA's own legislature said it was unclear whether their law actually forbid gay marriage, you keep ignoring your own research....too funny
so they changed the law....
as to the other states, i knew you couldn't give a straight answer as to them changing their constitutions. they did amend their constitutions because they knew that, like CA, the statutes could be struck down by their supreme court's as unconstitutional, so they needed to CHANGE their constitutions....
but you, being intellectually dishonest, support that change
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so you're saying interracial marriage was recognized in those states before loving v. virginia?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no they didn't....I linked you to the decision.....they said that historically California had always forbidden gay marriage.....they based their decision of the fact that the state's ban against gay marriage was a violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause.....
dude, you just admitted I was right.....if the state had statutes that would be struck down, they had laws banning gay marriage.....and you have the nerve to say I am being dishonest in the same post?......asshole.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
/boggle.....no, I'm saying what I have always been saying.....marriage meant the relationship between a man and a woman before Loving and after Loving.....they didn't have to change the meaning of marriage.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is getting boring...pampers....you're not being honest in the slightest, so i will lay out the facts and be done with you in this thread:
1. at least 26 states have changed their constitution to ban gays from marriage.
2. loving v. virginia changed state's definition of marriage from between only members of the same race (whites), to all races can marry.
3. PMP will not answer whether he supports the ban on interracial marriage or supports loving v. virginia
4. CA legislature expressly changed the law in 1977 because they understood that their statutes did not clearly ban gay marriage. again, in 2000, CA voters were so scared of gays being able to marry, they again changed the law with prop 22.
1. at least 26 states have changed their constitution to ban gays from marriage.
2. loving v. virginia changed state's definition of marriage from between only members of the same race (whites), to all races can marry.
3. PMP will not answer whether he supports the ban on interracial marriage or supports loving v. virginia
4. CA legislature expressly changed the law in 1977 because they understood that their statutes did not clearly ban gay marriage. again, in 2000, CA voters were so scared of gays being able to marry, they again changed the law with prop 22.