Page 28 of 69 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #271
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-11-08 @ 10:09 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    71

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Not true. You applied the law to a specific group, persons with black skin.
    No, I already addressed this: I applied it to everyone. in my law, if a white person has black skin, then it's applied to him, too! In prop 8, if a straight person is gay, it's applied to him, too!

    In the case of marriage, EVERYONE is either male or female. The law applies to EVERYONE.
    No, the law applies to everyone who is gay similarly to how my satire applied to everyone who is black.
    Last edited by StoneCrow; 11-06-08 at 10:26 PM.
    Self-Proclaimed Slacker

  2. #272
    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
    As long as this is a Judo Nation that will happen.


    Judo nation, man on man combat Are you trying to tell us something sailor
    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

  3. #273
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Disparity

    "Disparity"
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    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?
    Yes, the government should have a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting victimless crimes (pot smoking).

    Similarly, the government has a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting civil unions -- marriages, civil contracts, between individuals based on informed consent; and, it does provide those negative rights.

    The public government is not obligated to provided positive rights to smokers or certain civil contracts -- civil unions -- marriages.

  4. #274
    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: Crude

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Crude"
    What does that mean, recognized?
    The government does not validate or sanction marriage.

    Marriage is a civil contract, a civil union between entities, that may be litigated in any civil court; that is recognition.

    If the government outlawed the formation of civil contracts between same sex persons, or passed laws which prevented sexual relations between such persons, that would mean that gay marriage was outlawed.
    But homosexual acts can't be outlawed nor do I think it should be.
    That has already been tested in front of SCOTUS.
    Marriage on the other had is a power we have granted the government.
    In granting them the power to decide who should marry we defacto grant them the ability to decide who shouldn't be married.
    Instead of keep a relationship private, it becomes a public government affair subject to the whims of politicians and people.
    The solution is to take away the power if the government to acknowledge marriage for anyone. Otherwise someone is always going to have their idea who should and shouldn't marry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    And affirmative action places persons ahead of others based on color and gender.
    What is your point?

  5. #275
    Fool & Troll Handler
    MC.no.spin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Seen
    08-26-17 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    This is Anthony Kennedy's record as regards homosexuality - anybody want to weigh in on how he might rule on this? I've bolded what I think may give a clue:

    Gay rights and homosexuality

    Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. He wrote the Court's opinion in the controversial 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he authored the Court's opinion Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal prohibitions against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous contrary ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In doing so, however, he was very careful to limit the extent of the opinion, declaring that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. Lawrence also controversially referred to foreign laws, specifically ones enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights, in justifying its result. Kennedy voted, with 4 other Justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000.
    Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Everyone has his axe to grind - his favorite fiction to pimp. We live in a world of hustlers and clowns."
    ~ Bob Somerby

  6. #276
    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: Disparity

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Disparity"
    Yes, the government should have a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting victimless crimes (pot smoking).

    Similarly, the government has a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting civil unions -- marriages, civil contracts, between individuals based on informed consent; and, it does provide those negative rights.

    The public government is not obligated to provided positive rights to smokers or certain civil contracts -- civil unions -- marriages.
    Do you know of any regualtion / law that would prevent a same sex couple from going to an attorney and having a partnership drawn up?

  7. #277
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    You've made the Christian argument, thankyou! Something I've stated on this board before as your hidden agenda.

    Civil unions ARE not marriage. Just as any same sex marriage would NOT be marriage. Whether Gavin Newsom likes it or not. So what must be the interest in gay advocates needing to declare their unions as marriage? They already have most of the legal benefits in California? What's the hidden agenda?...the beach head for a whole new set of radical gay lawyer legal maneuvers through the courts to eventually force the rest of us to treat your behaviors and lifestyles as equal to heterosexuals...whether we like it or not.

    Your side won't be placated regardless of how much we of the vast majority make reasonable concessions for your relative equality as a minority, as we have the last few decades, until some on your side can freely walk down streets and and in public media like tv, acting out your gay behaviors that many of the rest of us find repulsive. Behaviors many especially do not want exposed to their children. If your side continues to act so, I would predict a backlash by Americans is likely to occur.
    How you believe that this disjointed argument makes any sense is beyond me.

    You simply have made the argument on why civil unions are not acceptable. "Separate but equal" is still wrong.

    And you know what, I could care less whether you find "gay behavior repulsive" or not....that's what's great about America, you have that right.

    However, America should stand for fairness and justice and simply because some bigots are offended at the prospect that equality should be extended is not justification for discrimination.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #278
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Searching Reason

    "Searching Reason"
    Quote Originally Posted by jfuh View Post
    The bottom line is the people had spoken and they were against minority equality in full support of jim crow laws.
    USSC ruled such laws unconstitutional.
    Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional because it forced the government to act prohibitively, contrary to its negative obligations, against fundamental rights of free association - liberty.

    Anti-miscegenation laws would not let whites co-habitate with black.

    At one time homo-sexual relations were prohibited.

    Homosexual marriage (civil union) is not prohibited.

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-24-09 @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    964

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneCrow View Post
    Except homosexuals just happen to have a tendency toward their own sex in a way that heterosexuals do not. It's so flagrantly obvious.
    Seriously, this is synonymous to: the law won't recognize gay love. Only straight love is recognized by law.
    You are incorrect. You can love your dog if you want to, and in your house you can even have sex with him, but you can't make the rest to recognize you both -you and your dog*- officially married.

    The same applies to homosexuals and lesbians trying to marry members of their same sex. They can "love" between themselves any way they want, but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.

    (*Amanzingly the god of the bible calls "dogs" to homosexuals in the first covenant of the bible, and the same title also appears in the last chapter of the book of Revelation, Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the muderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loves and makes a lie. Rev.22:15)

  10. #280
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    If your side continues to act so, I would predict a backlash by Americans is likely to occur.
    I doubt it. Americans may be slow to evolve, but eventually they get it right.

    America has a history of treating blacks and other racial minorities and women as second class citizens. Eventually we have come around. Today, America treats gays as second class citizens. Its just a matter of time, whether you like it or not.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 28 of 69 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •