- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 20,630
- Reaction score
- 14,981
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes they are. They want to impose their definition of marriage upon everyone at the legal level. They are left alone by zealots. It isn't illegal to be gay. And if I was in California I would absolutely have this imposed on me. I would have voted for Prop 8, my vote would contribute to it's passing. Having a judge rule my beliefs to be unconstitutional and repeal a proposition that the majority of people legally voted for is absolutely an imposition of morals and a violation of my rights as a voter.No they are not. They just want to be left alone by religious zealots and their dark age fantasies of imposing Teh Almighteh GAWD!!! upon their private lives. You are having nothing imposed on you as long as you stay the hell out of a gay wedding and don't marry a gay.
I was asked one non religious valid opinion to oppose gay marriage. The fact that homosexual unions are obviously and biologically different from hetero unions is enough to prevent them from being considered the same union at the legal level. The issue is that there really wasn't a legal definition for marriage until Prop 8 came along and asked the voters to decide what marriage is. However, those people had their rights as voters revoked and their beliefs ruled to be illegal because some judge wanted to ram his beliefs down everyone's throat. This case is being brought to the appeals court, and I hope to the supreme court, where the voters will have their rights re-instated and the constitutionality of state's rights being properly put back in place.As for the rest of your appeal to nature...its a fallacy. Until you add the requirement of procreation to the marriage license, you have no point with that little rant.
And that makes you a legal scholar, how?
I was responding to someone saying I had no idea what I was talking about when I stated homosexuality was unnatural. Legally speaking, the gay marriage bans across the country have been challenged and found to be perfectly in line with the Constitution. I'm just saying either the majority of judges who ruled it was ok to define marriage are legally stupid, or this judge in California is being an activist judge (and the facts would add up to support that position).
Last edited: