Page 13 of 69 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #121
    Student veganshawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    U$A
    Last Seen
    11-11-08 @ 07:36 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    253

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You lost, get use to it....All you lefties can do is bitch and call names when you lose..........
    Really since I came here I am the one that has been called names, I didn't call one person a name in my response.
    You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. -Malcolm X

  2. #122
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.
    Please note I said "similarly situated" people, like two consenting adults. So, no, the law is not applied EQUALLY.
    Last edited by Macintosh; 11-06-08 at 01:18 AM.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  3. #123
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Please note I said "similarly situated" people, like two consenting adults. So, no, the law is not applied EQUALLY.
    "Similarly Situated" means nothing basically.
    umm.....okay let me try this.
    If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
    No. These two people are "Similarly Situated" they are both smoking, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.

    To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.

    The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.

    My theory is for the government to get out of marriage altogether. The purest way for government to be equal is to do nothing. An empty scale is always balanced.

  4. #124
    Student veganshawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    U$A
    Last Seen
    11-11-08 @ 07:36 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    253

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    If gays get the government to recognize their marriage (not likely), Polygamists will be next in line and if they get the recognition then people will ask the government to recognize marriages to family members. Then the totally absurd like marriage to animals or furniture.
    On this issue, for once, I would like to see freedom and liberty prevail over convenience and government handouts.
    I think gay couples and polygamists (of legal age) should have a right to marry. I think that many churches are willing to recognize marriage as being about love and not just gender or two people.
    (Where I made bold)I really hate when people say this kind of thing, you really think a gay couple who have been in a committed relationship and technically are married except for the "legal paper" are the same as someone who is mentally ill and would want to marry an inanimate object? Unless of course you are of the mindset that being gay is a mental defect then our conversation will end..
    You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. -Malcolm X

  5. #125
    Student veganshawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    U$A
    Last Seen
    11-11-08 @ 07:36 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    253

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    "Similarly Situated" means nothing basically.
    umm.....okay let me try this.
    If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
    No. These two people are "Similarly Situated" they are both smoking, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.

    To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.

    The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.

    My theory is for the government to get out of marriage altogether. The purest way for government to be equal is to do nothing. An empty scale is always balanced.
    Technically smoking infringes on another persons right to happiness where as gay couples being married doesn't hurt anyone.
    And if government gets out of marriage what would happen to marriages like mine where my wife and I are both agnostic and wouldn't want to get married in a church.
    You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. -Malcolm X

  6. #126
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    "Similarly Situated" means nothing basically.
    LOL. Really?

    similarly situated legal definition of similarly situated. similarly situated synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    similarly situated adj. with the same problems and circumstances, referring to the people represented by a plaintiff in a "class action," brought for the benefit of the party filing the suit as well as all those "similarly situated." To be similarly situated, the defendants, basic facts, and legal issues must be the same, and separate lawsuits would be impractical or burdensome

    Pretty clear to me. The rest of your banter has nothing to do with Equal Protection whatsoever.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  7. #127
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Boy... somone doesnt behave the way you think they should and you get -all- pissy.
    Ya, I guess I just get pissy about ignorant idiots denying others their civil rights. Carry on, Governor Wallace. Sorry to speak up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    You need to blame the minorities -- specifically the blacks, hispanics and Asians - who supported this FAR more than the whites.
    "Blame the minorities"? First of all, blacks were the only minority that voted for it at a significantly higher proportion than anyone else. And it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, you racist piece of ****. There were plenty of white rednecks in Bakersfield and Fresno who undoubtedly voted for this too.

    It has to do with education and church attendance, not race. Big surprise: the well-educated rationalists (who happened to be predominantly white and Asian) were the least likely to support it, whereas the uneducated Jesus Freaks were the most likely to support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    You also need to blame those that worked so hard to get out the minoirity vote.
    You need to stop your shameful race-baiting. But thanks for showing the true colors of the pro-homophobia movement; it's really no different than the pro-segregation movement.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-06-08 at 02:10 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #128
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    Not about scwewing over gay people. Its about my Christian religion and morals. I actually believe in an almighty entity called God. Not something many in your camp understandably seem to relate to. It requires faith and with it, I hope for salvation in eternity instead suffering the fate of mortal death. Despite the fact scientific reality makes that seem unbelievable. I relie on laws my God has provided we followers in his Bible to reach that goal. It is absolutely clear about homosexuality in the Bible being an abomination he hates. A fact most in your camp tend to regularly twist into modern interpretations the vast majority of Christians do not buy into. Nothing you people will argue can change that with Christians that actually bother to read that holy book.
    I really don't give a damn WHAT you think your magical book or your invisible man in the sky tells you. That is NOT a valid reason to deny someone else their civil rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy
    On the other hand, our God makes considerable input about marriage between men and women that is held in sacred importance. Thus we absolutely hate such a prominent traditional human ceremony being associated with a lifestyle we think is clearly sinful. Not that we dislike the person's involved but rather the choice of lifestyle and behavior. And we do not in the context of modern society demand that you gays not be able to make your own choices on that matter but rather that your lifestyle not be forced into ours. Much like those people who choose to pursue pornography, prostitution, drugs and other personal behaviors that don't tend to hurt others beyond possibly the individual. As many of us see it, your attempt at forcing this on us isn't really about marriage but rather a waypoint of the gay agenda towards making the gay lifestyle as acceptable as that of heterosexuals. Thus "don't ask don't tell" for military service, and keeping yourself out of conflict with our culture is a wiser path if you wish to coexist with we of the majority. Thus we have blocked your path to that end. That is why our media tv campaign went beyond simply the marriage issue. That was quite successful because recent history rang true with those who recall what your lawyers and politicians have been up to the last couple decades. Your impatient advocates brought this on themselves.
    Bull****. No one is "forcing" anything on you. The day that gay rights advocates propose an amendment making gay marriage MANDATORY for everyone, I'll agree with you. But until then, just shut the **** up and don't marry someone of the same sex if you don't want to.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #129
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Federal Constitution gives all people the equal protection of the laws meaning that regardless of race, a man can marry a woman.
    The federal constitution gives all people the equal protection of the laws meaning that regardless of gender, a person can marry a woman.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    The vote wasn't actually determined by pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage activists, it was determined by the people who were ambivalent and didn't vote on the issue at all.

    The pro-marriage side had more funding than any other social cause in history, but they couldn't get the people who didn't care to get off their behinds and actually vote. More people didn't care either way, and not caring is the same as abstaining. So what do you get?

    The people who are truly dedicated to making sure the measure goes through will go to the polls because, well, they are hardcore about it. The people that want to stop it, mainly gays and special interest groups, also show up, but they are a minority.

    Voter apathy does the most damage. Additionally, in California, no one anticipated Obama's black heritage to swing the vote to the right. Blacks and hispanics, statistically speaking, tend to be of a lower economic class, and so don't come from the educated elites that would vote against the bill. In other words, more people who voted based on their irrational biases showed up to vote in favor of the bill.

    I'm of the opinion that the State legislature should override this, as it's a minority issue. Segregation ended, not because of voters, but because of law makers. Minorities don't have the power of numbers to win over rights, they need law makers to help them. Gay marriage does not intrinsically infringe upon the right of heterosexuals to marry, so there is no logical course of action but to create a pro-choice environment where you can marry whichever gender you want.

    I do also agree that this bill is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. If gender of attraction/romantic interest is inherently not a choice - and science has already established it isn't - then the amendment is a violation of civil rights as it prevents couples from marrying according to their natural behaviour. Additionally, this amendment violates freedom of religion, since there are many churches in California that have willingly married gay couples up to the present according to their beliefs. Now those churches cannot issue licenses according to their faith.

    Finally, the veil of the law does not prevent people from getting married. They can and still will, so the "institution of marriage" is already being "violated" anyway. The amendment simply removes the legal benefits, which is really the only benefit of recognition of the law anyway. Now gay couples with children will not be able to raise their children as effectively as heterosexual people (i.e. lack of health benefits, guardianship if one of the parents dies etc.), which in turn damages family values; couples will not be able to share insurance responsibilities, mortgages, and licensing procedures, because the state does not recognize their marriage.

    This amendment is more damaging to society than it is productive, all because of a section of society that believes it contradicts their religious and/or moral values. It will be interesting to see how this situation develops.

Page 13 of 69 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •