Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Changing the constitution is unconstitutional?

It’s not as black and white as you claim. A constitutional revision is different from a constitutional amendment. The revision requires a simply majority vote in California, which is a pretty low standard. To amend the constitution, the Legislature must first approve it before it is sent to the public for final approval. That is a higher standard, and rightfully so. That higher standard has not been met in California, and in all likelihood it will not be met since the Legislature has approved gay marriage in the past.[/quote]

Bullshit. Prop 8 was legally, and CONSTITUTIONALLY presented to the voters. It was legally and CONSTITUTIONALLY passed by the voters.

The will of the people speaks louder than the votes of representatives not following the wishes of their constituency.

It will have to go the the US Supreme court to be overturned.

Activist judges fucked up, and now it is out of their hands. Thank God.

I doubt it will ever be heard in Washington. This is a states rights issue. Not a federal issue, regardless of what the militant activist gay movement wants to think, say or cry about.

It is a states rights issue. Not a federal issue. Which is how it should be.

if Cali wants to kiss the asses of the gay rights activists, that is fine with me as long as they leave me the fuck alone in Texas.

But I love how you were bragging like you knew the outcome of Prop 8 just a couple of months ago, and were about as wrong as you could be then. Now you want to tell everyone how you getting your ass handed to you is really a victory.

If gay marriage is legalized it should come from the will of the people, not from the bench of an activist judge.

522

[quote]forlife wrote:
All of which is beside the point, because your religious beliefs should no more be enshrined in federal laws than should the beliefs of people from a different religion than yourself.

[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and government should not be involved in it. Government does not have the right to dictate religious doctrine so it should not be involved in who can marry and who cannot.

Any properly ordained minister, etc should be able to marry whoever is supported by their religious doctrine and the State should accept that.

So if there is a religion that allows gay marriage, then they can marry them under that religion. Just like the State cannot dictate when and how you worship, they should not dictate when and how you marry.

523

[quote]NeelyDan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.

Changing the constitution is unconstitutional?

LMAO at the utter fucking stupidity from the militant gay-rights crowd.

You lost. The courts can’t change the rules for you this time.

Deal with it and move on.

Change takes time, Rainjack. Trust that someday this issue will be on the same level of racial minorities being discriminated against.

Noone has lost shit. You deal with that.
[/quote]

What the fuck are you even saying, dickweed? The election is over. Prop 8 passed.

How about you keep your ignorant fucking nose stuck back into Canadian shit, and quit being a dumbass on American shit.

Seriously, learn to fucking read.

524

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Show me in the new testament where this is stated, that is the new covenant, I am not an orthodox jew.
[/quote]

If I do, will you then support federal legislation in favor of these passages from your holy book? Why or why not?

525

actually, Gay marriage in California started with a proclamation by the mayor of SF. Now, same sex marriage in New Hampshire was actually voted on by the people. Many of whom I heard were transplanted Texans.

526

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bullshit. Prop 8 was legally, and CONSTITUTIONALLY presented to the voters. It was legally and CONSTITUTIONALLY passed by the voters. [/quote]

Did you even read what I said? A constitutional revision is different from a constitutional amendment. The latter bears a higher standard, and requires approval by the state legislature. Proposition 8 was a revision, not an amendment to the constitution. It is already being challenged in the California supreme court (not the U.S. supreme court) as contradicting the equal rights clause of the constitution.

527

[quote]ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Is it possible for a gay person ‘to love’? Are we redefining love now? Love springs, at least partially, from the innate desire to procreate.

Gay people cannot love, in the actual sense of the word.

Do you love your mother, Headhunter? [/quote]

Love for relatives is different from romantic love, toolboy. Love for family is rooted in the instinct for self-preservation (families work together for the survival of each).

Romantic love is based on the creation of children. Gay ‘love’ is not equivalent, by definition, therefore gay ‘love’ is simply perversion, and deserves no recognition by society.

528

[quote]rainjack wrote:

What the fuck are you even saying, dickweed? The election is over. Prop 8 passed.

How about you keep your ignorant fucking nose stuck back into Canadian shit, and quit being a dumbass on American shit.

Seriously, learn to fucking read.
[/quote]

You’re gonna take shots at MY reading comprehension, you fucking neanderthal?

Christ you’re dimwitted. My point is that the battle is far from over. Things change. What is socially acceptable in one era may not be in the next.

You know, you’re all full of piss and vinegar and shit, but you’re really just a fucking idiot eh?

529

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bullshit. Prop 8 was legally, and CONSTITUTIONALLY presented to the voters. It was legally and CONSTITUTIONALLY passed by the voters.

Did you even read what I said? A constitutional revision is different from a constitutional amendment. The latter bears a higher standard, and requires approval by the state legislature. Proposition 8 was a revision, not an amendment to the constitution. It is already being challenged in the California supreme court (not the U.S. supreme court) as contradicting the equal rights clause of the constitution.[/quote]

We accepted that you voted for criminal Obama, with your 55 electoral votes. But when a vote doesn’t go YOUR way, you’re all out in protest.

Its over, the people have spoken, right? About Obama and homo marriage? Live with it.

530

[quote]clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.

I couldn’t care less if you recognize it. What I do care about is hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and the 1,000 other benefits of federal marriage that are denied to gays in our country.

On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?
[/quote]

Yet gays have money taken out of their checks to support straight couples… how is this fair?

531

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.

I couldn’t care less if you recognize it. What I do care about is hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and the 1,000 other benefits of federal marriage that are denied to gays in our country.

On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?

Yet gays have money taken out of their checks to support straight couples… how is this fair?
[/quote]

It’s not no one should be forced to support someone elses beliefs or family of 12 for that matter, but that is a different debate.

532

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
forlife wrote:
All of which is beside the point, because your religious beliefs should no more be enshrined in federal laws than should the beliefs of people from a different religion than yourself.

I have to agree with this. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and government should not be involved in it. Government does not have the right to dictate religious doctrine so it should not be involved in who can marry and who cannot.

Any properly ordained minister, etc should be able to marry whoever is supported by their religious doctrine and the State should accept that.

So if there is a religion that allows gay marriage, then they can marry them under that religion. Just like the State cannot dictate when and how you worship, they should not dictate when and how you marry.
[/quote]

So why aren’t you equally against the government recognizing (and giving legal rights/tax benefits/etc for) marriage between heterosexuals?

You’re also, still, ignoring the fact that the battle is for legal marriage. Any two people can have a ceremony with or without religious leaders present, they can wear rings and call themselves married; but only a select group can actually get the legal benefits of it.

533

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bullshit. Prop 8 was legally, and CONSTITUTIONALLY presented to the voters. It was legally and CONSTITUTIONALLY passed by the voters.

Did you even read what I said? A constitutional revision is different from a constitutional amendment. The latter bears a higher standard, and requires approval by the state legislature. Proposition 8 was a revision, not an amendment to the constitution. It is already being challenged in the California supreme court (not the U.S. supreme court) as contradicting the equal rights clause of the constitution.[/quote]

Revision, or amendment - it don’t matter. It was done legally and CONSTITUTIONALLY by the people of California.

Whine all you want. The facts are the facts.

534

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Is it possible for a gay person ‘to love’? Are we redefining love now? Love springs, at least partially, from the innate desire to procreate.

Gay people cannot love, in the actual sense of the word.

Do you love your mother, Headhunter?

Love for relatives is different from romantic love, toolboy. Love for family is rooted in the instinct for self-preservation (families work together for the survival of each).

Romantic love is based on the creation of children. Gay ‘love’ is not equivalent, by definition, therefore gay ‘love’ is simply perversion, and deserves no recognition by society.

[/quote]

I thought gay ‘love’ was based on the creation of a clean colon? Oops, my bad!

535

[quote]NeelyDan wrote:

You’re gonna take shots at MY reading comprehension, you fucking neanderthal?[/quote]

Yes. You can’t read and you are a fucking idiot. Not my fault. Just stating the obvious.

I’m not dimwitted. You are a fucking moron for trying to use my post as a springboard for a gay revolution. I was commenting on the Prop 8 election in California - not the entirity of the fucking gay movement, you ignorant fuck.

[quote]You know, you’re all full of piss and vinegar and shit, but you’re really just a fucking idiot eh?
[/quote]

No - you just can’t fucking read and comprehend what is written.

Go back to Canadian politics. You are a fucking idiot and have no reason to be proving it on an American board.

536

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.

I couldn’t care less if you recognize it. What I do care about is hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and the 1,000 other benefits of federal marriage that are denied to gays in our country.

On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?

Yet gays have money taken out of their checks to support straight couples… how is this fair?

It’s not no one should be forced to support someone elses beliefs or family of 12 for that matter, but that is a different debate.
[/quote]

I love this debate.

We cant allow gays to marry because of the sanctity of marriage! “But what about divorce?” “Well, that’s wrong too, but I’m not about to go out and vote against it!”

I shouldnt have to pay taxes for gay couples to get married! “But gays pay taxes for straight people to get married…” “Well, that’s wrong too, but I’m not going to do anything about it!”

I think the government should just stay out of marriage entirely, since it’s a religious institution. “But heterosexuals get marriage benefits from the government all the time” “Well, that’s wrong too, but I’m not going to do anything about it!”

Anybody else see a pattern here?

537

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So why aren’t you equally against the government recognizing (and giving legal rights/tax benefits/etc for) marriage between heterosexuals?
[/quote]

Because it’s not marriage, it is domestic partners and it was already in effect before prop 8. And it remains in effect after prop 8. So this shows that it is not about rights, because the domestic partners law already gives the same rights as marriage in California. They just can’t call it marriage.

And I don’t care about this because it’s not marriage and therefore not religious.

Well, I know it’s about legal marriage and I’m saying the State should recognize any marriage sanctioned by any legitimate religion. But as I just stated, the domestic partners law already gives the same rights. So the ‘rights’ argument does not fly in California.

It’s about the term and meaning of marriage as a religious institution. And as you can see, Californians are not going to allow gays to redefine a religious institution with legal implications.

538

[quote]pat wrote:
There is no discrimination of gays. [/quote]

I could get insulted by this if I let myself. Insulted not simply because you are anti-gay marriage, but insulted that someone could be this dumb and/or ignorant to make such a statement.

539

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Is it possible for a gay person ‘to love’? Are we redefining love now? Love springs, at least partially, from the innate desire to procreate.

Gay people cannot love, in the actual sense of the word.

Do you love your mother, Headhunter?

Love for relatives is different from romantic love, toolboy. Love for family is rooted in the instinct for self-preservation (families work together for the survival of each).

Romantic love is based on the creation of children. Gay ‘love’ is not equivalent, by definition, therefore gay ‘love’ is simply perversion, and deserves no recognition by society.
[/quote]
Love is wanting the best for another person regardless of the cost to yourself, the whole “lay down your life for a friend” deal. It sounds like you’re confusing romantic love with physical attraction, which while similar are in fact two different things. Also, the point isn’t that gay love deserves recognition by society, its that two adult people (or more) should be able to sign a legally binding contract which grants certain privilages and responsabilities to both parties, regardless of their gender. Honestly, if a religious group chooses to recognize that contract as marriage, more power to them, but if not, it shouldn’t really effect how the government operates.

I’ll say it again in case you missed it earlier, I don’t believe that homosexuals can be married in the eyes of God, no matter what the government says. Hell, I’d be happy if the government just called everything a civil union, and left the religious elements of marriage to churches. But as long as we’re going to say “you two people can obtain a legal status by signing this document” then we’d damn well better not add “unless you’re the same gender”.

540

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.

I couldn’t care less if you recognize it. What I do care about is hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and the 1,000 other benefits of federal marriage that are denied to gays in our country.

On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?

Yet gays have money taken out of their checks to support straight couples… how is this fair?

It’s not no one should be forced to support someone elses beliefs or family of 12 for that matter, but that is a different debate.

I love this debate.

We cant allow gays to marry because of the sanctity of marriage! “But what about divorce?” “Well, that’s wrong too, but I’m not about to go out and vote against it!”

I shouldnt have to pay taxes for gay couples to get married! “But gays pay taxes for straight people to get married…” “Well, that’s wrong too, but I’m not going to do anything about it!”

I think the government should just stay out of marriage entirely, since it’s a religious institution. “But heterosexuals get marriage benefits from the government all the time” “Well, that’s wrong too, but I’m not going to do anything about it!”

Anybody else see a pattern here?

[/quote]

On the contrary I am trying to do something about it, but no one wants to listen to me.

Excuse me while I cry,

Just teasing, oh well, just like everyone the best we can do is keep trying and not give up,

So by all means Gay ights activist keep trying and we’ll keep fighting as well and hopefully someday we can come to resolve.