Calif. high court to rule Tuesday on Prop. 8

[Reason]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-22-california-gay-marriage_N.htm

"The California Supreme Court announced Friday that it will rule Tuesday on whether Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008 and which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, was a valid amendment to the California Constitution."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope it gets overturned.

Marriage should not have anything to do with the govt HOWEVER because it is currently connected to the govt. I feel the govt. has a responsibility to provide it equally.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT

UPDATE

YouTube - Calif. High Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stands (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8r4YtengUs)

[ceakins]

I'm with you on this. This is why a pure democracy is a scary thought. A pure democracy makes it easy to suppress a minority group. My suggestion to gay friends, even though they tend to be liberal and anti-gun, is to get armed and learn how to use it.

[PaleoPaul]

They'll overturn it...my guess.

[Reason]

bump

[Reason]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/us/26gay.html

[BlackTerrel]

I voted for Prop 8. I guess it doesn't matter how I vote though :rolleyes:

[KenInMontiMN]

If they rule against Californian's right to amend the CA constitution, those justices voting accordingly see themselves as a dictatorship committee and ought to be lined up and shot, not simply voted out of office. That's how you deal with blatant treason from those entrusted to public office.

A more balanced feature:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900884,00.html

If the courts are allowed to tell the citizenry what they can and can't do with their constitution, rather than the citizenry guiding the courts through constitutional directive, then self-determination is truly dead there.

[ceakins]

If they rule against Californian's right to amend the CA constitution, those justices voting accordingly see themselves as a dictatorship committee and ought to be lined up and shot, not simply voted out of office. That's how you deal with blatant treason from those entrusted to public office.

A more balanced feature:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900884,00.html

If the courts are allowed to tell the citizenry what they can and can't do with their constitution, rather than the citizenry guiding the courts through constitutional directive, then self-determination is truly dead there.

So you were for slavery and banning interracial marriage also?

[ceakins]

I voted for Prop 8. I guess it doesn't matter how I vote though :rolleyes:

Not if you are voting to suppress the civil liberties of a minority group no. That's why we aren't a democracy.

[zach]

How about, get the government out?

Let it be a ceremony between the people to be married and a church who will perform it.

If this type of thing will continue with banning, then unbanning, then re-banning again, then we will never achieve any consistency with any type of voting, and thus render the original voting useless.

[eduardo89]

I wish they'd rule that marriage should be kept out of government hands, though theres no chance of that ever happening...

In any case, since that's never going to happen, I hope they don't overrule it, although they probably will...

[ChaosControl]

So they can vote to declare whether a constitutional amendment is constitutional? Why the **** does the state even have a damn constitution then? They may as well just declare the judges and politicians dictators of the state and be honest.

It is irrelevant one's position on the issue, if you support limiting government at all you would oppose this. Fight this issue by having another amendment to overturn this one in a year or two, don't get the powers that be just declare themselves gods to do your bidding. Anyone who supports the court overturning this may as well just say they support a dictatorship.

[BeFranklin]

So they can vote to declare whether a constitutional amendment is constitutional? Why the **** does the state even have a damn constitution then? They may as well just declare the judges and politicians dictators of the state and be honest.

It is irrelevant one's position on the issue, if you support limiting government at all you would oppose this. Fight this issue by having another amendment to overturn this one in a year or two, don't get the powers that be just declare themselves gods to do your bidding. Anyone who supports the court overturning this may as well just say they support a dictatorship.

Exactly.

Well, the supreme court ruled that voters can really amend the constitution. Geeze.

The homosexual lobby was trying to subvert how constitutional amendmends are passed. The homosexual lobby failed again.

[puppetmaster]

they ruled against it but upheld the 18k existing ones??

[BeFranklin]

they ruled against it but upheld the 18k existing ones??

Looking at the text, they just violated the constitutional amendment :rolleyes:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It either is or isn't part of the constitution.

[ghengis86]

so if a state voted a proposition to disallow negroes or jooz from entering into private contracts, that's okay?

or how about if hetero lobby got a states judges to only allow hetero's to marry, eithout any proposition to vote on?

this is the great failure of democracy; the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. any overthrowing of the 'people's will' makes the judges common tyrants and also contradicts democracy

[BeFranklin]

so if a state voted a proposition to disallow negroes or jooz from entering into private contracts, that's okay?

or how about if hetero lobby got a states judges to only allow hetero's to marry, eithout any proposition to vote on?

this is the great failure of democracy; the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. any overthrowing of the 'people's will' makes the judges common tyrants and also contradicts democracy

a) Marriage is between a man and a women. It is physically impossible to have a marriage between gays.

b) homosexuality is an act, in fact its a pervert act. To liken someones race to something like "water sports" (pissing on people), eating shit, one man sticking it up another man's butt etc, is despicable.

c) Although libertines will disagree, these things are a sign of mental illness. It needs to be treated.

[ghengis86]

a) Marriage is between a man and a women. It is physically impossible to have a marriage between gays.

b) homosexuality is an act, in fact its a pervert act. To liken someones race to something like "water sports" (pissing on people), eating shit, one man sticking it up another man's butt etc, is despicable.

c) Although libertines will disagree, these things are a sign of mental illness. It needs to be treated.

can i not marry to peices of steel together? or marry two parts of a system?

are your views rooted in religion?

ETA: Personal, i find homosexuality revolting and disgusting, but that doesn't mean i want to use force to make others do like me and I will not discriminate people based on sexual preference. if some men prefer the company of other men, emotionally, physically or otherwise, go for it. Likewise, if one woman gets pleasure out of scissoring with another, who am i to tell her to stop?

[BeFranklin]

can i not marry to peices of steel together? or marry two parts of a system?

are your views rooted in religion?

ETA: Personal, i find homosexuality revolting and disgusting, but that doesn't mean i want to use force to make others do like me and I will not discriminate people based on sexual preference. if some men prefer the company of other men, emotionally, physically or otherwise, go for it. Likewise, if one woman gets pleasure out of scissoring with another, who am i to tell her to stop?

What the homosexual lobby fails to see in its bigotry is rules against homosexuality have existed in many different cultures and religions.

In other words, its a natural law.

[ChaosControl]

so if a state voted a proposition to disallow negroes or jooz from entering into private contracts, that's okay?

or how about if hetero lobby got a states judges to only allow hetero's to marry, eithout any proposition to vote on?

this is the great failure of democracy; the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. any overthrowing of the 'people's will' makes the judges common tyrants and also contradicts democracy

It isn't about whether it is okay or not.
It is about the government following the constitution or not.
Don't like it? Overturn the amendment with a new one, or flat out abolish government altogether.

You can't have the government say "oh hey guys, this amendment is bad because it restricts liberties so let us ignore it". You do that, you may as well just eliminate all binds on government power.

[angelatc]

Not if you are voting to suppress the civil liberties of a minority group no. That's why we aren't a democracy.

Waa. This is only about money. Yet another class of "entitled" that wants to tap into SS without actually working.

They're not supressing the rights of a minority. They're extending a specific benefit to yet another select group.

Rights should belong to individuals, not special classes. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marraige

I think the court will overturn it but I don't think they should.

[eduardo89]

California high court upholds gay marriage ban (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage)

[BeFranklin]

California high court upholds gay marriage ban (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage)

Put back the laws on sodomy and treatment of homosexuality.

[puppetmaster]

Looking at the text, they just violated the constitutional amendment :rolleyes:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It either is or isn't part of the constitution.


pretty plain and simple.

[PaleoPaul]

Put back the laws on sodomy and treatment of homosexuality.
Yay for theocracy! Muy bien!

[puppetmaster]

Waa. This is only about money. Yet another class of "entitled" that wants to tap into SS without actually working.

They're not supressing the rights of a minority. They're extending a specific benefit to yet another select group.

Rights should belong to individuals, not special classes. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marraige

I think the court will overturn it but I don't think they should.


Yep you are 100% correct----The government shouldn't have anything to do with marraige

[PaleoPaul]

pretty plain and simple.
ex post facto?

[BeFranklin]

Yay for theocracy! Muy bien!

Somehow we managed to survive as the free-est country in the world with those laws until the last thirty years.

Its the last thirty years we have declined. Check your premises.

[BeFranklin]

ex post facto?

A) its not an ex post facto law. Its how government opperates at that point on.

B) According to your view, the 13th didn't apply to slaves bought before the 13th came into being.

[PaleoPaul]

A) its not an ex post facto law. Its how government opperates at that point on.

B) According to your view, the 13th didn't apply to slaves bought before the 13th came into being.
I mean that, since the 18K gay couples were married before the Prop 8 became part of the Cally Constiution, they can't be negated.

[PaleoPaul]

Somehow we managed to survive as the free-est country in the world with those laws until the last thirty years.

Its the last thirty years we have declined. Check your premises.
Ah...cause and effect fallacy.

We were free because we had theocratic laws. Then, when they started to become relaxed or removed, then all of a sudden things started to become bad.

Not a good premise to start with...

[Reason]

Somehow we managed to survive as the free-est country in the world with those laws until the last thirty years.

Its the last thirty years we have declined. Check your premises.

with every post I've seen you make on these forums I become more and more amazed at how religiously indoctrinated you are. I feel bad for you.

[BeFranklin]

Ah...cause and effect fallacy.

We were free because we had theocratic laws. Then, when they started to become relaxed or removed, then all of a sudden things started to become bad.

Not a good premise to start with...

Hardly. You said we couldn't be free with such laws, and I gave an example to show it was wrong. Your statement fails.

[BeFranklin]

with every post I've seen you make on these forums I become more and more amazed at how religiously indoctrinated you are. I feel bad for you.

I've become amazed at how bigoted you are. And note, this isn't the first time you've chimed in with this.

[BeFranklin]

I mean that, since the 18K gay couples were married before the Prop 8 became part of the Cally Constiution, they can't be negated.

And your fishing license is forever?

This is false. I've given you one historical example and also the law itself. Following your reasoning, the 13th amendment of the us constitution didn't negate slavery that was enslaved before that.

This also fails.

[Reason]

This will continue to be put on the ballot every single year we have a vote and slowly more and more people will vote for equality.

The GOP and the mormon church are on the wrong side of morality and absolutely on the wrong side of history.

Considering how close this last election was I wouldn't be surprised if it is reversed on the next vote.

[BeFranklin]

This will continue to be put on the ballot every single year we have a vote and slowly more and more people will vote for equality.

The GOP and the mormon church are on the wrong side of morality and absolutely on the wrong side of history.

Considering how close this last election was I wouldn't be surprised if it is reversed on the next vote.

California is one of the most liberal states. If it fails there, it will fail everywhere.

The homosexual lobby has overextended themselves. They've bullied people too much, from public sex acts in festivals, gay literature to kindergarten kids, trying to affect marriage, attacking churches, etc.

I look to see a re-enstatement of the sodomy laws where they currently aren't. Thank God.

[Reason]

California is one of the most liberal states. If it fails there, it will fail everywhere.

The homosexual lobby has overextended themselves. They've bullied people too much, from public sex acts in festivals, gay literature to kindergarten kids, trying to affect marriage, attacking churches, etc.

I look to see a re-enstatement of the sodomy laws where they currently aren't. Thank God.

You disgust me with your religious propaganda and sodomy law talk, you sound like a mormon kid on a doorstep parroting their brainwashed talking points.

and you apparently need to pay more attention to the news considering how many other states have approved gay marriage in the last few months.

[BeFranklin]

You disgust me with your religious propaganda and sodomy law talk, you sound like a mormon kid on a doorstep parroting their brainwashed talking points.

and you apparently need to pay more attention to the news considering how many other states have approved gay marriage in the last few months.

Disgusting was the homosexual lobby trying to tell the california voter they can't vote.

Civil rights? THEY JUST TRIED TO DISENFRANCHISE THE WHOLE STATE!!!!!!

[ChaosControl]

This will continue to be put on the ballot every single year we have a vote and slowly more and more people will vote for equality.

The GOP and the mormon church are on the wrong side of morality and absolutely on the wrong side of history.

Considering how close this last election was I wouldn't be surprised if it is reversed on the next vote.

You're a "progressive" aren't you?

How is Franklin any more indoctrinated than you? You don't need religion to be brainwashed.

Progressives don't care about limiting government, they like to force their views on everyone without regard for the binds that hold government into check. May as well scrap the entire constitution of the U.S. and just grant the gov unlimited powers so it can ensure your view of "equality".

[purplechoe]

This will continue to be put on the ballot every single year we have a vote and slowly more and more people will vote for equality.

The GOP and the mormon church are on the wrong side of morality and absolutely on the wrong side of history.

Considering how close this last election was I wouldn't be surprised if it is reversed on the next vote.


...

[Reason]

You're a "progressive" aren't you?

How is Franklin any more indoctrinated than you? You don't need religion to be brainwashed.

Progressives don't care about limiting government, they like to force their views on everyone without regard for the binds that hold government into check. May as well scrap the entire constitution of the U.S. and just grant the gov unlimited powers so it can ensure your view of "equality".

"That we use political labels as little as possible when describing
people's ideologies. When somebody asks me, "Are you a liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? I answer, "What's the issue?" Categorizing someone's ideas as either "liberal" or "conservative" is often used to avoid real thinking about actual issues."

[ChaosControl]

Can you respond with your own words instead of quoting others?
All you did with your quote is avoid answering the question anyway. But that of course answered the question indirectly...

[Freedom 4 all]

What the homosexual lobby fails to see in its bigotry is rules against homosexuality have existed in many different cultures and religions.

In other words, its a natural law.

Are you actually serious or just a dedicated troll? WTF kind of argument is that? Lot of cultures and religions across time have had utterly retarded laws. Quite possibly more cultures and religions said slavery is OK than have said ***** aren't. Also natural law doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. Look up St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law is "written on the heart of man" in other words it is noncontroversial and agreed upon by everyone like the whole Golden Rule thing.

[Brian4Liberty]

I look to see a re-enstatement of the sodomy laws where they currently aren't. Thank God.

Why? You don't believe in freedom? Are they hurting you?

One of the reasons we are up to our ears in laws of every kind is that lawmakers "compromise" by giving each other their preferred laws.

Legislator A: "I'll go along with your sodomy law, if you'll go ahead with my gun ban."
Legislator B: "Ok, it's a deal. I have 500 other bans I want to throw in there, do you mind?"
Legislator A: "No problem, I have another 500 myself."
Legislator B: "Isn't it great that we work together so well?"
Legislator A: "Bipartisanship is great! Did you remember to include those laws to make third Parties impossible?"
Legislator B: LOL "Top priority!"


I would rather stick with freedom and as few laws as possible.

[Brian4Liberty]

I look to see a re-enstatement of the sodomy laws where they currently aren't. Thank God.

Which version of sodomy laws would you like to reinstate?


A sodomy law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law) is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation.

[ceakins]

Put back the laws on sodomy and treatment of homosexuality.

Maybe a bunch of homosexuals should just arm themselves.

[Pepsi]

I live among a lot of Mormons, very nice people. I don't really have a problem with them.

[KenInMontiMN]

If/When Californians vote to repeal the prop 8 amendment, then it is no longer in place. To have the court do that would make the constitution there a complete sham. The constitution directs the high court, and never the other way around, or there is no Republic and there is no Rule of Law.

And yes, regarding the slavery question- if a Republic's constitution declares slavery lawful and valid, then slavery is lawful and valid until the document is amended to say otherwise.

But the whole slavery issue in our history comes down to this- slavery pre-dated the founding of the nation; there would have been no uniting of the states if a constitution had been written forbidding slavery, the constitution wouldn't have been ratified by the original states. The founders saw clearly that divisive social issues were best left to the states in order to have a sustainable Union, and that meshed well with their notion of federalism being preventative medicine to fight off the scourge of the unitary central state.

I'd give a prop 8 repeal effort a better chance in '12 than '10; presidential election years tend to bring out the maximum turnout and I've a hunch that lower turnout will favor the prop 8 amendment supporters. Just my feeling on that, could certainly be wrong. But in the end this is up to Californians, and the sad thing about all the ruckus is that there'd be no such amendment in place but for an activist court ruling in the first place. Sometimes govt is truly best kept out of the loop- I don't consider the present situation a win for Californians, though I'd certainly view today's ruling coming down the other way, denying their right to amend their constitution through the legal means, as the most deplorable scenario imaginable.

[Reason]

I live among a lot of Mormons, very nice people. I don't really have a problem with them.

yes, they tend to be very nice, polite, loving people as long as you only know them superficially.

The second you ask them about their political views the only thing you will get is parroting directly from their church.

The mormon church is directly responsible for the outcome of prop 8 in the recent election. The memo instructing the churches to facilitate mass donations and activism was even leaked online.

And asking them about this,

YouTube - References for the Cartoon banned by the Mormon church (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwS4X94FpF4)

is not recommended if you wish to remain friends with them.

[TheEvilDetector]

Adult Consentual Homosexuality is a private sexual matter, this much is obvious.

IMHO, there shouldn't be ANY laws about it because of this.

In other words, the correct ruling should be "not applicable, not our business to make decisions here".

Why are the nation's courts spending time dealing with this?

Why is the general public distracted with this non-issue repeatedly?

Looks like successful Pavlovian conditioning.

If two homosexuals want to get together and call it marriage, let them,
but the court system, should not be making laws about it one way or another.

[BlackTerrel]

You disgust me with your religious propaganda and sodomy law talk, you sound like a mormon kid on a doorstep parroting their brainwashed talking points.

and you apparently need to pay more attention to the news considering how many other states have approved gay marriage in the last few months.

Maybe you should stop with the Mormon bashing.

Homosexuality is a perversion, it's unnatural and the people that identify themselves as such are fucked up in the head. They shouldn't be recognized as normal because they're not.

[BlackTerrel]

Maybe a bunch of homosexuals should just arm themselves.

And after they arm themselves, then what? What are you proposing?

[time4change]

It is physically impossible to have a marriage between gays.How so? The wedding bands don't fit?


Put back the laws on sodomy and treatment of homosexuality.No thanks. I'd rather not have the government telling me I can't get a BJ from my girlfriend.

[zach]

Maybe you should stop with the Mormon bashing.

Homosexuality is a perversion, it's unnatural and the people that identify themselves as such are fucked up in the head. They shouldn't be recognized as normal because they're not.

I wouldn't be so hasty with over-generalizations.
No matter what sexuality someone is, there will always be someone who is massively screwed up in the head. Narrowing it to the LGBT community may make you feel better, but it doesn't help your case that people of non-straight orientations are the only people who lead "abnormal" lives.

We're all human, what makes you any better than someone else, and what gives you credibility to say you're "more normal" than another person?




Adult Consentual Homosexuality is a private sexual matter, this much is obvious.

IMHO, there shouldn't be ANY laws about it because of this. In other words, the correct ruling should be "not applicable, not our business to make decisions here".
Why are the nation's courts spending time dealing with this? Why is the general public distracted with this non-issue repeatedly?
Looks like successful Pavlovian conditioning. If two homosexuals want to get together and call it marriage, let them,
but the court system, should not be making laws about it one way or another.

This.

[ceakins]

And after they arm themselves, then what? What are you proposing?

How about a little heterosexual bashing.

[ceakins]

Maybe you should stop with the Mormon bashing.

Homosexuality is a perversion, it's unnatural and the people that identify themselves as such are fucked up in the head. They shouldn't be recognized as normal because they're not.

You don't have to hate yourself just because you are gay. It's alright you can come out of the closet.

[Thesemindz]

I don't see the big deal.

After all, why shouldn't a small minority of people be allowed to enforce their views through violence on millions of others who simply don't want or don't care to take part in a system that they don't believe in. After all, if the homosexuals and their supporters really want equality, all they have to do is get a few hundred more thousand people to show up at the polls, then they get to be the ones holding the gun.

That's the American system right? Freedom? Equality? Tyranny of the majority?

And so what if the minority have no representation, no rights, and no say. If they are in the minority it must be because they're views are inherently immoral or unwise. The majority can't get it wrong, after all, they're in the majority. Might makes right. Right?


-Rob

[Thesemindz]

Hold on. I think I got it all wrong in my last post.

If only 13 million or so people showed up to vote, then they are collectively in the minority of state citizens. So the real majority position of the state would seem to be, "voting is a waste of time that doesn't accomplish anything of real value and I don't care to participate in your system, so leave me out of it."

So according to my math, the "will of the people" is to leave the people the **** alone.


-Rob

[torchbearer]

Courts ruled that we live in a democracy, not a republic.
People's equal rights under the law can be abridged by the will of the majority.
Not a problem until you are in the minority.

[ceakins]

Courts ruled that we live in a democracy, not a republic.
People's equal rights under the law can be abridged by the will of the majority.
Not a problem until you are in the minority.

Yep.

[Thesemindz]

Courts ruled that we live in a democracy, not a republic.
People's equal rights under the law can be abridged by the will of the majority.
Not a problem until you are in the minority.

Except that that is all just a smoke screen, because the true minority, those in control of the state and its various mechanisms, are the real holders of power in our system. They appoint the judges, they make the rules, and they've long declared proprietary ownership of all people, all things, all virtues, and all labors and their fruits. They aren't beholden to the rules, and they get to decide who recieves what priviledges, while retaining all true rights only for themselves.


-Rob

[Objectivist]

Ms California ------ 2
Perez Hilton------- 0

[torchbearer]

Except that that is all just a smoke screen, because the true minority, those in control of the state and its various mechanisms, are the real holders of power in our system. They appoint the judges, they make the rules, and they've long declared proprietary ownership of all people, all things, all virtues, and all labors and their fruits. They aren't beholden to the rules, and they get to decide who recieves what priviledges, while retaining all true rights only for themselves.


-Rob

The elitist bused in all those mormons to vote on and to abridge the equal rights of contract?

[Thesemindz]

No, the elitists set up a system where we are at each other's throats over accidents of birth, instead of at their throats over the very real slavery they are subjecting us to.

My point was that the whole concept of majority rule, or minority rights, is an illusion, because the state has long held that only their claims are legitimate, and all others are only allowed or disallowed at their whim.


-Rob

[sarahgop]

its a reasonable decision

[torchbearer]

its a reasonable decision

if you want the majority to impose its will. sure.
just wait until you are the wrong side of the vote.
Your neighbors decide that your house is better suited as a shopping center so they vote your house be sold. Hope it happens to you because "its a reasonable decision".

[Freedom 4 all]

Maybe you should stop with the Mormon bashing.

Homosexuality is a perversion, it's unnatural and the people that identify themselves as such are fucked up in the head. They shouldn't be recognized as normal because they're not.

Maybe you should stop with the gay bashing?

And I'm sure you are aware that their fight is very similar to yours whether you like it or not. Do you not remember that interracial marriage was treated in much the same way by ignorant dickheads many moons ago. Is that a side of history you wish to be on?

[Brian4Liberty]

Homosexuality is a perversion, it's unnatural and the people that identify themselves as such are fucked up in the head. They shouldn't be recognized as normal because they're not.

Nice. You agree with Adolf Hitler. Maybe we can put you in charge of defining who is normal?

[Reason]

nice. You agree with adolf hitler. Maybe we can put you in charge of defining who is normal?

+1

[BlackTerrel]

I wouldn't be so hasty with over-generalizations.
No matter what sexuality someone is, there will always be someone who is massively screwed up in the head. Narrowing it to the LGBT community may make you feel better, but it doesn't help your case that people of non-straight orientations are the only people who lead "abnormal" lives.

Of course not just gay people are screwed up in the head. But it's also clear that being homosexual means something is not entirely wired correctly in you. God or evolution or whatever you believe in makes it so that people are attracted to those of the opposite sex - that's how the species survives and that's just common sense.

Now gay people aren't unique in this. There are people who have chain fetishes, and foot fetishes and other crazy things. I was listening to Love Line the other day and there was this guy who had a sexual fetish with used women's panties. He would spend tens of thousands of dollars buying used women's panties and satisfy his urges that way. He wasn't attracted to women, just their panties.

Now I'm not calling for discrimination against these people. This sick fuck can sniff women's panties all day long. But I would never be friends with someone like this, I would never want to work with someone like this, and I would never want to elect this sick fuck to public office. And I'd laugh at anyone that would try and convince me that panty sniffers are normal people.

I feel the same way about homosexuals. They can do what they want - but don't try and convince me that they're normal.

[BlackTerrel]

You don't have to hate yourself just because you are gay. It's alright you can come out of the closet.

I'm not gonna lie, I kinda like the beard.

[BlackTerrel]

Maybe you should stop with the gay bashing?

And I'm sure you are aware that their fight is very similar to yours whether you like it or not. Do you not remember that interracial marriage was treated in much the same way by ignorant dickheads many moons ago. Is that a side of history you wish to be on?

I do like those blonde chicks...

This is a laughable argument. No one's advocating making gay people drink from separate water fountains or to be hung from trees. I'm saying that their way of life isn't normal and shouldn't be recognized. Because I'm black should I also support the life of rednecks in Alabama who have sex with sheep to be allowed to get married? After all they're going through the same struggle my people went through :rolleyes:

BTW the only reason prop 8 passed was because of Obama. Because of Obama black people came out in record numbers. And black people (being Church going folk) voted for prop 8 in massive numbers.


Nice. You agree with Adolf Hitler. Maybe we can put you in charge of defining who is normal?

With Hitler's mustache he could've quite easily been in the village people. Which puts him firmly on your side.

[BuddyRey]

I don't see the big deal.

After all, why shouldn't a small minority of people be allowed to enforce their views through violence on millions of others who simply don't want or don't care to take part in a system that they don't believe in. After all, if the homosexuals and their supporters really want equality, all they have to do is get a few hundred more thousand people to show up at the polls, then they get to be the ones holding the gun.

That's the American system right? Freedom? Equality? Tyranny of the majority?

And so what if the minority have no representation, no rights, and no say. If they are in the minority it must be because they're views are inherently immoral or unwise. The majority can't get it wrong, after all, they're in the majority. Might makes right. Right?


-Rob

Hallelujah and Amen!

"Conservative" majoritarianism bites the big one.

[ceakins]

I do like those blonde chicks...

This is a laughable argument. No one's advocating making gay people drink from separate water fountains or to be hung from trees. I'm saying that their way of life isn't normal and shouldn't be recognized. Because I'm black should I also support the life of rednecks in Alabama who have sex with sheep to be allowed to get married? After all they're going through the same struggle my people went through :rolleyes:

BTW the only reason prop 8 passed was because of Obama. Because of Obama black people came out in record numbers. And black people (being Church going folk) voted for prop 8 in massive numbers.



With Hitler's mustache he could've quite easily been in the village people. Which puts him firmly on your side.

Ah yes the animal argument. Let me put a hole in that for you. SHEEP CAN'T CONSENT. Are you capable of understanding that concept?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Prop 8 violates the 1st Amendment, plain and simple. I'll be happy if SCOTUS strikes down that portion of the California Constitution.

[Krugerrand]

Prop 8 violates the 1st Amendment, plain and simple. I'll be happy if SCOTUS strikes down that portion of the California Constitution.

There's a better chance of winning a new a vote in CA than winning at the SC.

[ChaosControl]

Prop 8 violates the 1st Amendment, plain and simple. I'll be happy if SCOTUS strikes down that portion of the California Constitution.

Now see, that'd be fine. If a state constitution violates the federal, then yes it can be struck down. However, state supreme court judges can't declare a state constitutional amendment unconstitutional anymore than SCOTUS could declare the first amendment suddenly unconstitutional.

Now I disagree that Prop 8 in any way violates the first amendment though. It is a legitimate amendment and should be upheld until overturned as long as constitutional government is in place.

I find it amazing, so many people seem to want the courts to have unlimited power and not be bound by a constitution.

Disagree with the amendment, fine. Work to get rid of it, great. But don't ask the courts to have unlimited power and be able to say that X or Y piece of the state constitution is itself unconstitutional.

Now I agree with those who say that government should have no place one way or another in marriage, but I also don't want to grant courts unlimited power, if anything they already have far too much power.

I'd strongly support a constitutional amendment that completed eliminated any legal concept of marriage or civil union, it completely divorced such unions from the state.

[Wineman77]

I do like those blonde chicks...

This is a laughable argument. No one's advocating making gay people drink from separate water fountains...

In a way you are. If you think that civil unions, that hold similar rights to marriage are good enough, you are supporting "separate but equal". This has already been ruled against in Brown v the Board of Education. As long as government has a hand in marriage, it need to be open to all.

So you would not be friends with a panty sniffer? How do you know you are not already? People sexual proclivities do not define who they are. Many people have odd fetishes that are only known to themselves and maybe their partners.

[Freedom 4 all]

Because I'm black should I also support the life of rednecks in Alabama who have sex with sheep to be allowed to get married? After all they're going through the same struggle my people went through :rolleyes:
.

That argument almost worked. However, no one defines themselves as a "sheep fucker." I sincerely doubt the said Alabama rednecks are in love or even attracted to the sheep they fuck, plus there is no consent. Homosexuals actually define themselves as homosexuals and they have consentual relationships.

[Freedom 4 all]

To me, this is a freedom of religion issue seeing as marriage IS primarily a religious institution. That's if it is indeed true (which I'm not so sure) that gays get the same rights as married folk in civil unions. I feel that my religion is getting discriminated against here. Say I'm a Unitarian Universalist pastor (I'm not but I do consider UU to be my religion). Is it, or is it not a violation of my freedom of religion if my religion tells me that I should perform gay marriages and the state says I can't? No one's forcing Mormons, Catholics or Baptists to perform ceremonies they don't want to so their rights are being violated in no way, yet they are the ones whining about Freedom of Religion for reasons that aren't 100% clear to me.

[Brian4Liberty]

With Hitler's mustache he could've quite easily been in the village people.

So your theory is that Hitler's oppression and extermination of homosexuals was prompted by fear of his own latent homosexuality? Based also on his belief that they were mental defectives, and mental defectives needed to be eliminated? You may have something there...

[Freedom 4 all]

So your theory is that Hitler's oppression and extermination of homosexuals was prompted by fear of his own latent homosexuality? Based also on his belief that they were mental defectives, and mental defectives needed to be eliminated? You may have something there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika

As utterly batfuck insane as it is, there are some people who actually believe that.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

So your theory is that Hitler's oppression and extermination of homosexuals was prompted by fear of his own latent homosexuality?

Uh, The Night of the Long Knives and the killing of the Stormtrooper's commanders was based on the excuse of their being gay. Röhm was known as being rather openly homosexual. This raises questions about Hitler.

[LibForestPaul]

I wish they'd rule that marriage should be kept out of government hands, though theres no chance of that ever happening...

In any case, since that's never going to happen, I hope they don't overrule it, although they probably will...

How do you know?
How do you know if enough media and money was put forth in California by libertarians, this could never happen?
Probably those states which have referendums would be good states to start libertarian initiatives, say Arizona .

[BlackTerrel]

So you would not be friends with a panty sniffer? How do you know you are not already? People sexual proclivities do not define who they are. Many people have odd fetishes that are only known to themselves and maybe their partners.

That's fine. That's the whole point. I'm sure there's all kinds of weird people out there but for the most part they keep it to themselves. This psycho that called into Loveline because he spends tens of thousands of dollars on women's panties knows that he has a problem and wouldn't share his perversion with most people.

Only gay people are supposed to be proud of the fact that they're gay and tell everyone about it. And we're supposed to act like it's normal. Bullshit.

This isn't an issue I care that strongly about BTW. At the end of the day there have always been gay people and there always will be. I just don't want to be forced to think that they're normal.

[BlackTerrel]

So your theory is that Hitler's oppression and extermination of homosexuals was prompted by fear of his own latent homosexuality? Based also on his belief that they were mental defectives, and mental defectives needed to be eliminated? You may have something there...

I don't know how you got that from what I said. But his mustache was a bit *****.

[BeFranklin]

http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika

As utterly batfuck insane as it is, there are some people who actually believe that.

Why don't you post the link to the actual book so people can read it for themselves. Its accurate history. The nazi party was founded in a homosexual bar among other things.

http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

Looks like it has some good reviews:

“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council

“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education

“The Pink Swastika is a tremendously valuable book, replete with impressive documentation presented in a compelling fashion.” William Grigg, The New American

“...exposes numerous lies, and tears away many myths. Essential reading, it is a formidable boulder cast into the path of the onrushing homosexual express...”
Stan Goodenough, Middle East Intelligence Digest

“The Pink Swastika is a powerful exposure of pre-World War II Germany and its quest for reviving and imitating a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of ****-eroticism and militarism.”
Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“Lively and Abrams call attention to what Hitlerism really stood for, abortion, euthanasia, hatred of Jews, and, very emphatically, homosexuality. This many of us knew in the 1930’s; it was common knowledge, but now it is denied...”
R. J. Rushdoony, The Chalcedon Report

[BeFranklin]

So your theory is that Hitler's oppression and extermination of homosexuals was prompted by fear of his own latent homosexuality? Based also on his belief that they were mental defectives, and mental defectives needed to be eliminated? You may have something there...

Hitler was only doing a purge of his own ranks. Communists also killed other communists plenty of times.