Calif state Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage

[pocketfullofshells]

After centuries of subjugation women should have just accepted that they were inferior beings and not campaigned for equality.

I agree, I mean we voted, and they are only good for babies and cooking. and when we need sex, they should have no choice but to give it to us.

 

[Pandora]

After centuries of subjugation women should have just accepted that they were inferior beings and not campaigned for equality.

It’s not the same. Neither is the civil rights issue, and black people will be the first to say that the hate it when homosexuals compare their plight to homosexual plights.

A non homosexual has the exact same rights as a homosexual. A non homosexual female may only marry a male just like a homosexual female.

Black people on the other hand could not sit in the same places, use the same drinking fountain or eat in the same places, men could vote but women could not vote. There was clear bias against black people and against women but with the homosexual thing the rights are exactly the same, exactly.

I think its great if homosexuals want to change the laws as long as they are done legally and respectfully. I am just glad the judges didn’t diss the voters. Get it back on the ballot and work hard getting people to understand why you want it and change the laws.

I think it might be harder next time though, there have been so many attacks like the one guy who attacked miss California and targeted churches and businesses who donated to prop 8. people should not be attacked for having a belief against homosexual marriage just like people should not be attacked for having a belief in homosexual marriage.

It will get on the ballot again and it will be interesting to see what the voters vote next time.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It’s not the same. Neither is the civil rights issue, and black people will be the first to say that the hate it when homosexuals compare their plight to homosexual plights.

Weird that you would say that when the current head of the NAACP in public speeches has stated that the battle for gay rights is a civil rights issue exactly the same as black people faced. No doubt some don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue.

A non homosexual has the exact same rights as a homosexual. A non homosexual female may only marry a male just like a homosexual female.

As I have noted a few times, that argument was first put forward by the KKK to argue against inter-racial marriage. The said that there was no discrimination because a black man could marry a black woman and a white man could marry a white woman. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Black people on the other hand could not sit in the same places, use the same drinking fountain or eat in the same places, men could vote but women could not vote. There was clear bias against black people and against women but with the homosexual thing the rights are exactly the same, exactly.

I know you want to believe that, it would so comforting to do so, but it just ain't the case. You have chosen an arbitrary quality found in all human cultures all down through history and set that up as the litmus test: this love is sacred and this love is profane, so you have the right to persecute those whom you feel to be "less than" you are. Your argument is as old as the hills and has been used to discriminate against various groups forever. The fact that the individual rights denied to the groups often varies makes no difference, it's the fact that an arbitrary standard has been set up to deny a group equality. You can marry the person you love and set up a legally protected family with them, this is denied to homosexual people and it is done so for religious reasons.

I think its great if homosexuals want to change the laws as long as they are done legally and respectfully. I am just glad the judges didn’t diss the voters. Get it back on the ballot and work hard getting people to understand why you want it and change the laws.

I am often chagrined at the endless repetition of old arguments slightly refurbished to apply to the new enemy. Black people were told exactly the same thing: work within the law legally and respectfully. The problem they and we face is that we are minorities in a country that is ignoring its own Constitution and is voting away the inalienable rights that the founding fathers tried to guarantee to all.

I think it might be harder next time though, there have been so many attacks like the one guy who attacked miss California and targeted churches and businesses who donated to prop 8. people should not be attacked for having a belief against homosexual marriage just like people should not be attacked for having a belief in homosexual marriage.

How many gay and transgendered people have been murdered, raped, beaten, lost their jobs, etc.? For centuries people have been using religious cant and bigoted arguments to push an agenda of hate against us. Sh1t, they burned Joan of Arc at the stake for being transgendered. When one looks at the history of black people in this country it's no wonder that groups like the Black Panthers were formed, the wonder is that MORE of those groups weren't formed after nearly two centuries of abuse. Gay people have been abused for centuries--is it any wonder that some of them strike back? The amazing thing to me is that more don't do it. Most gay people are very peaceful and the general population has banked on that being the case and used their very peacefulness against them.

It will get on the ballot again and it will be interesting to see what the voters vote next time.

In the end I think we will win, but it may take decades to achieve and many more of us will be beaten and murdered before people wake up to what they are doing. It's a very simple equation: if it was you on the receiving end of this kind of behavior would you feel that it was okay? If you were the minority and you could only marry a person of the same sex, would you feel discriminated against? Bet your bippy you would.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Pandora said: It’s not the same. Neither is the civil rights issue, and black people will be the first to say that the hate it when homosexuals compare their plight to homosexual plights.

Mare Said: Weird that you would say that when the current head of the NAACP in public speeches has stated that the battle for gay rights is a civil rights issue exactly the same as black people faced. No doubt some don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue.

I read that too Mare and just about blew my coffee all over my computer flat screen...LMAO

But then again I just chalked it up to another found-less B.S. statement without any 'proof'...remember she's the one that patted Siho on the butt for her resounding bit of 'fluff' that had no substance but was just loaded up with horse semen and deviant sexual ideas/fear {and then it droned on for 850 some posts}!!!! OMG...the things that some people say and then seem oblivious to the insanity of it...LMAO

 

[GenSeneca]

That was pretty much expected....what's good news for those who care about individual rights and bad news for the religious fascists is that the 18,000 couples already married will remain so and are now official...Thank God.

Since when do you care about individual rights? Oh, that's right, you don't... The only the "individuals" you care about are the ones who agree with your positions... You don't give any concern to the individual rights of the unborn, the wealthy, the religious etc.... You're the one who said putting Conservatives in concentration camps wouldn't be a bad idea... And you call others fascists...

How odd its only when the tyranny of the majority AKA "direct democracy" doesn't go your way that you think its "Fascism"... Normally you're all about a 51% tyranny of the majority... You're all about being in the majority because you love to force your views on others through the power of the state! You're all about economic and social fascism as well!

Prop 8 was flawed because its a fight between authoritarians on two different sides who want to use the power of the state to get their way.... Both should use their combined power to eliminate, and then limit, the power of the state to regulate marriage.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Since when do you care about individual rights? Oh, that's right, you don't... The only the "individuals" you care about are the ones who agree with your positions... You don't give any concern to the individual rights of the unborn, the wealthy, the religious etc.... You're the one who said putting Conservatives in concentration camps wouldn't be a bad idea... And you call others fascists...

How odd its only when the tyranny of the majority AKA "direct democracy" doesn't go your way that you think its "Fascism"... Normally you're all about a 51% tyranny of the majority... You're all about being in the majority because you love to force your views on others through the power of the state! You're all about economic and social fascism as well!

Prop 8 was flawed because its a fight between authoritarians on two different sides who want to use the power of the state to get their way.... Both should use their combined power to eliminate, and then limit, the power of the state to regulate marriage.

if the state does not, then who will? I am talking from legal point of view, not the church point of view...as of now you can marry in a church in evry state if your gay...just deppends on what church . I have no issue with churchs not marrying a gay couple, thats there buisness....But what we have now is the state saying what churches they will listen to. Its State and federal power over churches...

 

[GenSeneca]

if the state does not, then who will? I am talking from legal point of view, not the church point of view...as of now you can marry in a church in evry state if your gay...just deppends on what church . I have no issue with churchs not marrying a gay couple, thats there buisness....But what we have now is the state saying what churches they will listen to. Its State and federal power over churches...

The "state", whether an actual state government or federal, should only be a record keeper and arbitor of contract law between the affected individuals, not a decider of who can or can't be married, or which church weddings the state will recognize. The laws concerning, and rights contained in, a marriage/civil union can, and should, all be done through contract law while the ceremony be left to the individuals directly involved in the ceremony.

I'm not sure that answers your question:

if the state does not, then who will?

If I misunderstood your question, then please restate/explain it and I'll be glad to address it.

 

[top gun]

The "state", whether an actual state government or federal, should only be a record keeper and arbitor of contract law between the affected individuals, not a decider of who can or can't be married, or which church weddings the state will recognize. The laws concerning, and rights contained in, a marriage/civil union can, and should, all be done through contract law while the ceremony be left to the individuals directly involved in the ceremony.

I'm not sure that answers your question:

if the state does not, then who will?

If I misunderstood your question, then please restate/explain it and I'll be glad to address it.

If I'm reading you correctly you believe that any two adults getting married is nobody else's business... including the state and government.

This sounds correct to me.

I think pocket is saying it's also a matter of equal rights in a legal sense.

This sounds correct to me as well.

I think for a myriad of reasons we all three agree.

Why you had to go into this I have no idea...

Originally Posted by GenSeneca
Since when do you care about individual rights? Oh, that's right, you don't... The only the "individuals" you care about are the ones who agree with your positions... You don't give any concern to the individual rights of the unborn, the wealthy, the religious etc.... You're the one who said putting Conservatives in concentration camps wouldn't be a bad idea... And you call others fascists...

because let's be honest pocket could just as easily turn this around on you and Conservatives and say...

Conservatives don't care about the feelings, life & health of women, the poor, the minorities, those wanting to not have someone else's religious views forced upon them. You're the ones always calling Liberals Socialists... saying Liberals should be ran out of the country because they're not somehow patriotic enough.

See that's not necessary now is it? Let's all just be glad we found something to agree on... be it for possibly somewhat different reasons.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The "state", whether an actual state government or federal, should only be a record keeper and arbitor of contract law between the affected individuals, not a decider of who can or can't be married, or which church weddings the state will recognize. The laws concerning, and rights contained in, a marriage/civil union can, and should, all be done through contract law while the ceremony be left to the individuals directly involved in the ceremony.

I'm not sure that answers your question:

if the state does not, then who will?

If I misunderstood your question, then please restate/explain it and I'll be glad to address it.

I was asking, that in terms of all legal issues, taxes, ect ...who decides then and on what merit if there is no state/gov involved? Some private company will decide? at some point government is going to have to be in on it.

 

[GenSeneca]

I was asking, that in terms of all legal issues, taxes, ect ...who decides then and on what merit if there is no state/gov involved? Some private company will decide? at some point government is going to have to be in on it.

Individuals, and groups, incorporate all the time (enter into contract law) with only their lawyers to draw up the legal arrangements. The government isn't involved in that process (except as a record keeper) and neither are private companies.

If there is a dispute in the contract, then government becomes involved as an arbitor by way of the courts but it doesn't decide who can, and cannot, enter into legally binding contracts.

Why does government have to get involved in marriage?

 

[Pandora]

Weird that you would say that when the current head of the NAACP in public speeches has stated that the battle for gay rights is a civil rights issue exactly the same as black people faced. No doubt some don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue.


As I have noted a few times, that argument was first put forward by the KKK to argue against inter-racial marriage. The said that there was no discrimination because a black man could marry a black woman and a white man could marry a white woman. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.


I know you want to believe that, it would so comforting to do so, but it just ain't the case. You have chosen an arbitrary quality found in all human cultures all down through history and set that up as the litmus test: this love is sacred and this love is profane, so you have the right to persecute those whom you feel to be "less than" you are. Your argument is as old as the hills and has been used to discriminate against various groups forever. The fact that the individual rights denied to the groups often varies makes no difference, it's the fact that an arbitrary standard has been set up to deny a group equality. You can marry the person you love and set up a legally protected family with them, this is denied to homosexual people and it is done so for religious reasons.


I am often chagrined at the endless repetition of old arguments slightly refurbished to apply to the new enemy. Black people were told exactly the same thing: work within the law legally and respectfully. The problem they and we face is that we are minorities in a country that is ignoring its own Constitution and is voting away the inalienable rights that the founding fathers tried to guarantee to all.


How many gay and transgendered people have been murdered, raped, beaten, lost their jobs, etc.? For centuries people have been using religious cant and bigoted arguments to push an agenda of hate against us. Sh1t, they burned Joan of Arc at the stake for being transgendered. When one looks at the history of black people in this country it's no wonder that groups like the Black Panthers were formed, the wonder is that MORE of those groups weren't formed after nearly two centuries of abuse. Gay people have been abused for centuries--is it any wonder that some of them strike back? The amazing thing to me is that more don't do it. Most gay people are very peaceful and the general population has banked on that being the case and used their very peacefulness against them.


In the end I think we will win, but it may take decades to achieve and many more of us will be beaten and murdered before people wake up to what they are doing. It's a very simple equation: if it was you on the receiving end of this kind of behavior would you feel that it was okay? If you were the minority and you could only marry a person of the same sex, would you feel discriminated against? Bet your bippy you would.

Over a period of years I have listened to African Americans say this is not the same and they resent it being treated as the same. I am not African American so I have no opinion on it; I was just telling you what I have heard repeatedly over the years.

If you want me to I will try to spend some time this weekend finding you quotes from various people though I have a hard time believing that you have never heard an African American say that…

And I think you are right, eventually it will be legal in every state. Hopefully polygamy will too and hopefully anyone who wants to marry anyone or anything in groups or in singles can do so if they want. I think it would push marriage back to the original meaning eventually after everyone got their jollies out of it.

 

[Andy]

I don't see that marriage is between a man and a woman anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights... nowhere.

Perhaps you could point it out to us?

I do find it in religious dogma that we are supposed to be protected from having imposed on us from one religious sect to another.

Marriage isn't given by man. It's given by G-d, and what is natural. Even the dictionary says it's between a man and a woman. Male and female is how it works. Two males can not mate. Two females can not mate. You can tell how nature works, and how it was intended to be. You can also see that the most successful relationship as a whole come from that system.

Now, I realize that you will of course complain about my "religious dogma". Well.. too bad. I don't make it a point to fit in with the politically correct crowd, and by now you of all people know that I will never care a rats butt what you think of me about any issue. I stand for the laws of G-d, and not the rants of men. I will vote, and support and uphold the natural way as established by our creator G-d. And that is in the declaration of independence.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Over a period of years I have listened to African Americans say this is not the same and they resent it being treated as the same. I am not African American so I have no opinion on it; I was just telling you what I have heard repeatedly over the years.

If you want me to I will try to spend some time this weekend finding you quotes from various people though I have a hard time believing that you have never heard an African American say that…

And I think you are right, eventually it will be legal in every state. Hopefully polygamy will too and hopefully anyone who wants to marry anyone or anything in groups or in singles can do so if they want. I think it would push marriage back to the original meaning eventually after everyone got their jollies out of it.

Just because I've never heard a black person say doesn't mean that some don't feel that way. It's irrelevant anyway, a civil right is a civil right.

I'm fine with marriage being a contract that any number can enter just like any other contract. Personally, I think that plural or group marriages make a lot of sense since they give the family a wider base.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage isn't given by man. It's given by G-d, and what is natural. Even the dictionary says it's between a man and a woman. Male and female is how it works. Two males can not mate. Two females can not mate. You can tell how nature works, and how it was intended to be. You can also see that the most successful relationship as a whole come from that system.

Now, I realize that you will of course complain about my "religious dogma". Well.. too bad. I don't make it a point to fit in with the politically correct crowd, and by now you of all people know that I will never care a rats butt what you think of me about any issue. I stand for the laws of G-d, and not the rants of men. I will vote, and support and uphold the natural way as established by our creator G-d. And that is in the declaration of independence.

If you can prove that marriage is given by God and that He wants it to be just a man and a woman, then I will agree with you and actively campaign to make God's desires law.

The rest of your post is semantically null and somewhat bad-tempered and scornful.