CA Gay Marriage...VOIDED!

[Larry Gude]

Tonio...

...Whidbey is an old, tired, worn out joke.


As far as 'gay marriage' goes, it's an intellectual journey for me and I used to think it was just plain silly.

One takes the time to examine why a certain public policy is why it is and, over time, one digests the pro's and con's, examines ones own feelings and thougths and, what, two years we've been publicly discussing gay marriage, and I'll live next to a loving couple of 'homo's' sharing property rights and being good citizens over two hate filled hetero's who spend all their time giving marriage a bad name to begin with.

In either case, they can't borrow my lawn mower.



I don't have one! HAHAAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Larry Gude]

Dude...

I'm sure rapist/child molesters would like the law to be changed to suite their desires, but I don't think(well if we give you a few years you'll probably change your stance on this too) you would want your represntatives cateing to the few (not majority) of rapist/molesters that we have in our state.

This has what to do with gay marriage?

 

[Tonio]

Re: Dude...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
This has what to do with gay marriage?

Only that he's convinced that he is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
For fundamentalists, maybe it's like their opposition to porn and birth control. They seem to believe in "be fruitful and multiply" and that nothing must get in the way of that.

No, they are merely adhering to the teachings of their religion. And that's fine. But THEIR religion shouldn't serve as a basis for anyone ELSE'S lifestyle or rights as a citizen. That's why it says the government cannot establish religion in our handy-dandy little Constitution. And I think it's wrong for George Bush to invoke religion when considering this issue.

I'm all about free association. I wouldn't make it against the law to, say, cross-dress in public. But I would say that employers and business owners should have a right to say, "We're not going to hire or serve cross-dressers" and let the market decide.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
It's removing moral foundations that our country was built on.

I don't happen to think homosexuality is immoral. Sex with the non-consenting or those incapable of consenting is one thing. What we're talking about here are two adults who are hurting no one in their pursuit of happiness.

I guess the majority rules doesn't mean anything to you either.

You're right - it doesn't. In small groups, you can go with a show of hands. With a larger group, you need representatives so that some compromise can be achieved between various factions. The Founding Fathers did it right when it came to setting up our government. We don't have situations like in the Middle East, where they're ruled by religious edicts and those who don't believe are basically SOL.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'm all about free association. I wouldn't make it against the law to, say, cross-dress in public. But I would say that employers and business owners should have a right to say, "We're not going to hire or serve cross-dressers" and let the market decide.

Nobody wants to smack me around for this statement?

 

[Larry Gude]

To clarify...

And that's fine. But THEIR religion shouldn't serve as a basis for anyone ELSE'S lifestyle or rights as a citizen.

It can form a basis however in the form of me learning why so and so feels or thinks or believes X.

Thou shall not kill.

I'm good with that.

It's a big, bad step to taking someones life but, there are righteous reasons some times, so, the Commandmants are left in the hands of the individual. Would I have killed Pilot to save Jesus from cruxifiction?

I've yet to hear a compelling reason, from a religious standpoint, to deny gay people the right to confer public and legal commitment to each other.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK...

I wouldn't make it against the law to, say, cross-dress in public. But I would say that employers and business owners should have a right to say, "We're not going to hire or serve cross-dressers" and let the market decide.

What kind of goof ball homo idea is that?

You are so ghey.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Nobody wants to smack me around for this statement?

Feel better now?

Actually, I'll disagree with you. Basically, you are saying that employers and business owners should be allowed to discriminate. How can that be good?

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Nobody wants to smack me around for this statement?

i agree with you. I just have a problem when the gov. comes in and says you have to do this and this.... Yeah, I understand the FDA, etc. I just really believe that if a restaurant/business is doing something wrong, the people should take a stand and make their voice known.

 

[Larry Gude]

I apologize to sifl and CEO...

...for calling you guys idiots.

It's just that I object to what I took as unwarranted hostility towards gays. Only you know how you meant it.

I don't agree with the tone nor if you really feel that way, but I apologize.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Nobody wants to smack me around for this statement?

No, just force you to cross-dress and walk into Victoria's Secret and yell, "I know what the secret is!"

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
I apologize to sifl and CEO......for calling you guys idiots.

Somebody mark this date on the calendar - QUICK!!!!!

 

[Larry Gude]

OK...

NO need to worry, there are 12 more states lined-up to pass amendments to their state constitutions banning homosexual marriage

But how will the states' Supreme Court and then the Federal circuits and ultimatley the US Supreme Court gonna say this is OK, a Constitutional exclusion of a right?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only Amendment we've ever had that limited an individual right was the 18th (?) Prohibition, and that was over turned.

In otherwords, how or on what grounds can a Federal Constitution with all the rights confered to individuals, especially equal protection, say that two (or more!) people CAN NOT marry?

Topic for duscusion.

 

[Larry Gude]

I didn't want to get banned...

...in the middle of what may well be a very interesting thread.

 

[ylexot]

Re: OK...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
But how will the states' Supreme Court and then the Federal circuits and ultimatley the US Supreme Court gonna say this is OK, a Constitutional exclusion of a right?

I don't consider marriage to be a right. Why do you think it is?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by ylexot
I don't consider marriage to be a right. Why do you think it is?

Good point.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good point.

Let me try another angle.

If there is no Constitutional basis FOR marriage, straight or otherwise, where will the PROHIBITION of marriage, based on number of citizens and there gender, come from?

 

[Larry Gude]

And furthermore...

...how are we, the US, to legally ban a legally recognized marriage of two people if they were married, let's say, in Jamaica?

 

[ceo_pte]

Re: OK...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
But how will the states' Supreme Court and then the Federal circuits and ultimatley the US Supreme Court gonna say this is OK, a Constitutional exclusion of a right?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only Amendment we've ever had that limited an individual right was the 18th (?) Prohibition, and that was over turned.

In otherwords, how or on what grounds can a Federal Constitution with all the rights confered to individuals, especially equal protection, say that two (or more!) people CAN NOT marry?

Topic for duscusion.

I agree that it's not a right. We do have certain rights in this country, but I view this differently. As individuals(me included) we have certain rights, but I am not sure that those rights are being violated by not allowing them to be a part of something that was set aside for only a man and woman. I've got something that just got placed on my desk.. Gotta run!