Page 26 of 52 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 518

Thread: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

  1. #251
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Hazl, read all the posts next time I was under the impression Disney was speaking to a U.S. Constitutional right, not something from the state constitution.

  2. #252
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    When the government started giving out goodies for doing it. Also, as has been stated, when Loving v Virginia pretty much confirmed it.
    As previously noted, it is far easier to change bad legislation if that is truly the case here than having a huge emotion filled argument trying to force the vast majority of the population to suddenly re-define what marriage constitutes without any respect to their religious views.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Your definition was even wrong when it comes to the legal definition. So how the hell are you going to sit there chortling to yourself with undeserved smug satisfaction when you couldn't even get it right?
    The notion that my definition, one that has been used for centuries, is wrong when you can't even fabricate your own requires willful denial.

    But in the interest of honest and open discourse, why don't you educate me with the "proper" and "accepted" definition of marriage so that I can be MORE informed instead of continuing your typically arrogant smug chortling about some "perceived" notion.

  3. #253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    As previously noted, it is far easier to change bad legislation if that is truly the case here than having a huge emotion filled argument trying to force the vast majority of the population to suddenly re-define what marriage constitutes without any respect to their religious views.



    The notion that my definition, one that has been used for centuries, is wrong when you can't even fabricate your own requires willful denial.

    But in the interest of honest and open discourse, why don't you educate me with the "proper" and "accepted" definition of marriage so that I can be MORE informed instead of continuing your typically arrogant smug chortling about some "perceived" notion.
    Well why don't you start with taking a long hard look at your requirement that a minister be involved...

  4. #254
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    And, specific to California law, in Sharp v Perez.
    ...I can't resist....

    I like how gays are using president established in difference of religion while passionately speaking out against religion.

    The Multiracial Activist - PEREZ v. SHARP (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

    Petitioners contend that the statutes in question are
    unconstitutional on the grounds that they prohibit the free
    exercise of their religion and deny to them the right to
    participate fully in the sacraments of that religion. They are
    members of the Roman Catholic Church. They maintain that since the
    church has no rule forbidding marriages between Negroes and
    Caucasians, they are entitled to receive the sacrament of
    matrimony
    .
    Where is the modern pro-gm argument stating that denying gay marriage infringes on the first amendment?

    Oh that's right, the Church DOES have a rule against practicing homosexuality, well so much for your source's applicability to your argument there, Jallman, but let's continue anyway, because it amuses me when you try to twist the law...

    To continue:
    The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an area
    of personal liberty not yet wholly delimited. "While this Court has
    not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed,
    the term has received much consideration and some of the included
    things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not
    merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the
    individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
    of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home
    and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of
    his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long
    recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of
    happiness by free men
    ."
    (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S.
    390, 399 [43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042].) Marriage is thus
    something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the
    state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no
    prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective
    and by reasonable means
    .
    So now, per Jallman's argument, we can take the "marriage is a strictly legal contract" and the "government has no business regulating marriage in the first place" arguments and toss them right out; according to Jallman, a gay man.

    To continue:
    No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably
    discriminatory or arbitrary. The state's interest in public
    education, for example, does not empower the Legislature to compel
    school children to receive instruction from public teachers only,
    for it would thereby take away the right of parents to "direct the
    upbringing and education of children under their control
    ."
    (Pierce
    v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 [45 S.Ct. 571, 69
    L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468].0
    Oooo I'm saving that for another thread...anyway....back on topic...

    The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's
    child to a particular school or the right to have offspring.
    Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one
    of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
    fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race
    ."

    (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing
    such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free
    from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional
    requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws
    .
    So Perez v. Sharp is based in part on Skinner which does not uphold even the vaguest notion that same-sex unions are "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race". Rightly so, IMO, because 2 people of the same gender can not act out "procreation", which, according to Jallman's source and thus Jallman's own argument, is the expected legitimate function of marriage in the first place.

    "What about infertile couples" you cry? Ban them for all I care.

    To continue:
    In determining whether the public interest requires the
    prohibition of a marriage between two persons, the state may take
    into consideration matters of legitimate concern to the state.
    Thus, disease that might become a peril to the prospective spouse
    or to the offspring of the marriage could be made a
    disqualification for marriage
    . (See for example, Civ. Code,
    79.01, 79.06.) Such legislation, however, must be based on tests
    of the individual, not on arbitrary classifications of groups or
    races, and must be administered without discrimination on the
    grounds of race
    .
    Oooh look, pro-incest folks will like Jallman's argument to, as apparently he supports them as well.

    To continue...

    <<Character limit>>
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-26-09 at 06:52 PM.

  5. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    ...I can't resist....

    I like how gays are using president established in difference of religion while passionately speaking out against religion.



    Where is the modern pro-gm argument stating that denying gay marriage infringes on the first amendment?

    To continue:


    So now, per Jallman's argument, we can take the "marriage is a strictly legal contract" and the "government has no business regulating marriage in the first place" arguments and toss them right out; according to Jallman, a gay man.

    To continue:


    Oooo I'm saving that for another thread...anyway....back on topic...



    So Perez v. Sharp is based in part on Skinner which does not uphold even the vaguest notion that same-sex unions are "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race". Rightly so, IMO, because 2 people of the same gender can not act out "procreation", which, according to Jallman's source and thus Jallman's own argument, is the expected legitimate function of marriage in the first place.

    "What about infertile couples" you cry? Ban them for all I care.

    To continue:


    Oooh look, pro-incest folks will like Jallman's argument to, as apparently he supports them as well.

    To continue...

    <<Character limit>>
    That was the most craptastic post I have ever read.

    If you want to go that route, the government is limiting the rights of homosexuals who do not prescribe to a religion from marrying based on the moral disapproval of their lifestyle inherent in established religion.

    Problem solved.

  6. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    That was the most craptastic post I have ever read.

    If you want to go that route, the government is limiting the rights of homosexuals who do not prescribe to a religion from marrying based on the moral disapproval of their lifestyle inherent in established religion.

    Problem solved.
    I was originally married by a Justice of the Peace. Atheists do the same today. Some even have the Justice come out to a private ceremony which is family oriented and not religious by any measure.

    Also, Churches differ in opinion greatly, and many marry gays, so that doesn't fly.

  7. #257
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Well why don't you start with taking a long hard look at your requirement that a minister be involved...
    What is this? Equivocation? Again?

    Please Jallman, educate me on the definition of Marriage. I want to be more informed.

  8. #258
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I was originally married by a Justice of the Peace. Atheists do the same today. Some even have the Justice come out to a private ceremony which is family oriented and not religious by any measure.

    Also, Churches differ in opinion greatly, and many marry gays, so that doesn't fly.
    Well neither did that ill conceived crap that started with "Sharp v Perez was a purely religious argument" and ended with "Jallman supports incest".

    Come on...after how many years, did you think I was going to even consider giving that load of bull**** more than a moment's thought before swatting it aside as the load of baloney it is?

  9. #259
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    "What about infertile couples" you cry? Ban them for all I care.
    So, in 1955, my parents should not have been given a marriage license?

    Then who would have adopted my sister and me?

    Kinda cold, man.

  10. #260
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    What is this? Equivocation? Again?

    Please Jallman, educate me on the definition of Marriage. I want to be more informed.
    Again...why don't you take a hard look at your definition and how a minister fits into it versus a legal definition of marriage...

Page 26 of 52 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •