California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You keep agreeing with me and your really going to get in trouble with Vrai.... play it safe, just say Nu Uh

...we're in luck, then. I'm not agreeing with you. You're agreeing with me!

[lewis7lewis]

Originally Posted by Uncle Rico

General News - Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

Here we go again. Why can't the gays give it up? The MAJORITY of people don't want to approve of gay marraige. It was voted down in CA in 2000 and again in 2008. Thirty (30) out of Thirty (30) states that have had this issue put on the ballats over the years have all decided, in one way or another, against gay marraige.

It's a darn shame that in 2000 CA voted NO! Then 4 judges give in and decide it's OK. Then the people once again vote NO. Now a few judges get to decide again. It just doesn't make sense.

I say this issue should be put on a national ballot and be decided once and for all. I do not think it's right for gays to redefine Marraige. If they want to make up a new word like Gayraige or stay with the civil union thing, I think most Americans would let it be. To redefine marraige, is just not acceptable. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the majority of the citizens of this here United States. Amen!

You have serious issues in that pea brain of yours what they want is to have
the same rights as any married couple such as if one of them were to die or
health reasons or for insurance purposes.I dont think any of them are gonna
say that there lifestyle is normal.What they want to get married like any two people in love.What are you afraid of that they will break into your house and
redecorate.And I really dont care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors and who are you to say what is right and what is wrong.In case
you dont know over 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce so quit this
Bull ####!

PS Is everybody on this thing
Racist and Stupid ?

[toppick08 (Premo)]

[quote=Xaquin44;3407613]do you despise asians?

what they do (language customs etc.) is probably fairly foreign to you ....[/QUOTE]

like southerners to you.......

[Highlander]

Originally Posted by lewis7lewis

You have serious issues in that pea brain of yours what they want is to have
the same rights as any married couple such as if one of them were to die or
health reasons or for insurance purposes.I dont think any of them are gonna
say that there lifestyle is normal.What they want to get married like any two people in love.What are you afraid of that they will break into your house and
redecorate.And I really dont care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors and who are you to say what is right and what is wrong.In case
you dont know over 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce so quit this
Bull ####!

PS Is everybody on this thing
Racist and Stupid ?

Come on LewLew. Quit being so gay!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I was totally against gay marriage until Vrail made the argument, a couple years ago, that it's unconstitutional to single people out like that. In my view, she's correct.

Who's being singled out? They have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex just like you and I do, and the inability to "marry" (but have a civil union with) anyone of the same gender, just like you and I do

Homosexuals have had, do have and will continue to have children.

I understand they're physically capable, but not through homosexual acts. Should they choose to live/act against their nature, of course children are a possibility.

Make an argument why a settled, married and good neighbor gay couple is bad for society

Why? That's never been my claim. I've stated the exact opposite of this. I've repeatedly said that John and Harry living together in a union next door doesn't do a darned thing to my marriage, nor to yours. My claim has been and continues to be that the dilution of the word marriage cheapens it over generations, not next week. Just like the weakening of divorce laws has lead to, generations later, treating marriage and divorce like high school kids treat "going steady", I believe that adding homosexual unions to the concept of "marriage" will make the institution weaker for our grandkids and great-grandkids, not for you and me. I take a much longer view of what things do to society than "how will it effect me".

And, yes, how it will effect society IS a reasonable thing to look at for governmental actions. We allow churches to be tax exempt, and homeless shelters, and book mobiles, etc., etc. We do this because of the general gain these things provide society, and as a people (through our government) we actively encourage these institutions.

It's still a fruit. And that right there is funny.

I don't know him, I won't go there

But, while an apple and an orange are both fruits (like a marriage and a civil union are both relationships), they bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table. An pine tree and a daisy are both plants, but you wouldn't say they're equals, would you?

Let's just call it gay marriage, then?

Why not call the marriage the marriage and the union the union?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by camily

Holy crap. I thought This_person was a woman.

I choose to twist that into a compliment!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tilted

I have to disagree with you here. Although there is a widely held belief that there is no legal separation of Church and State, that belief is erroneous. The phrase was indeed given birth as a line in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, then the President of the United States.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the majority opinion included this passage:

That ruling interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment as creating a wall of separation between Church and State, and in so doing it defined the meaning of the First Amendment as such. Many people have vehemently argued that the ruling was in error, basically that the Supreme Court got it wrong; however, it is what they held and that makes it the law of the land.

So, "separate but equal" was right?

If there is a "wall", how do the the faith based initiatives work? How does a tax-exempt status for a church work? Why do we have clergy in the military, in the openings of Congress and the Supreme Court.....?

I think that wall consists of not establishing a religion, nor prohibiting you to have your religion. And, that's about it.

Justice Rehnquist wrote a very comprehensive dissent to the majority opinion in which he argued that the decision, as well as the decision in Everson v. Board of Education, was in conflict with the original intent of the First Amendment. Many people have argued that he was correct, but his dissent was just that, a dissent, and as such it holds no legal authority, except to the extent that someone refers to his arguments when making their own.

And, eventually, I do believe that he will be proven correct. In practice, he already is.

The notion of 'separation of Church and State' may have begun as a simple phrase in a letter, but it was given power, and indeed legal authority, by the Supreme Court of the United States. There are plenty of great legal minds who will tell you without reservation that they got it wrong; nonetheless, for legal purposes the validity of their interpretation is inherent.

In other words, although many people think it should be otherwise, in the United States there is a legal wall of separation between Church and State.

Except in the millions of ways that there is not, I agree. Or, rather, in the only ways that there is a wall (the one that prohibits the government from establishing religion, and prohibiting me from my religion), I agree.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

To an extent your correct, the vocal activists are looking not for recognition they are looking for acceptance. There is a difference, and its no different than shoving religious beliefs (not harping hang with me) as legislation.

The ideal solution would be to have civil unions (secular activity) afforded the same rights a Marriage (religious activity). Currently they do not, which is part of the reason the courts in various jurisdictions are hearing these cases.

The different opinions (on this board) continue to butt heads about the benefits attributed one instituion or another offers society, but the fact remains Marriages are afforded rights/benefits that are not givin to Civil Unions. Standardize both and you'd remove the driving force for (most except the my vehment) Homosexual discontent.

I would personally agree 100% with affording the benefits equally.

However, no one's rights are any different than anyone elses now, and I don't see that changing.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I would personally agree 100% with affording the benefits equally.

However, no one's rights are any different than anyone elses now, and I don't see that changing.

you know, if they would just agree to calling it something other than marriage, they would have had the "rights" they seek a long time ago.

civil unions could give them everything they want, and most would agree to that, but using the word marriage puts a whole new spin on things and that is what makes it offensive to most.

Their demand to use the word marriage is what causes me to belive they are trying to force acceptance to their relationship.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by bcp

you know, if they would just agree to calling it something other than marriage, they would have had the "rights" they seek a long time ago.

civil unions could give them everything they want, and most would agree to that, but using the word marriage puts a whole new spin on things and that is what makes it offensive to most.

Their demand to use the word marriage is what causes me to belive they are trying to force acceptance to their relationship.

I agree.

Like I said before, I believe the California "civil union" law that already existed had (to the best of my understanding) everything in it that "marriage" has. But, it was challenged, and the CA supreme court ruled that it was not good enough, because it had to be called "marriage" to be equal - and that was what spurred Prop 8 into existence. They had more before they challenged what they had than they have now, and that's too bad for them.