CA Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

[Baptist]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/04/calif-gay-marriage-case/


A federal judge has struck down Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, giving supporters of same-sex marriage a victory that will last at least until an appellate court’s near-certain review.

Even before the ruling, attorneys on both sides said they would immediately appeal a loss to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Brian Defferding]

This warms my Libertarian heart.

[dannno]

Get marriage out of the government, yes....

But in the mean time, provide it equally.

[Baptist]

This warms my Libertarian heart.

I just wish both sides would wake up and realize that everyone wins if you get the state out of licensing marriages at all.

[Brian Defferding]

I just wish both sides would wake up and realize that everyone wins if you get the state out of licensing marriages at all.

I completely agree with you.

[Kregisen]

I just wish both sides would wake up and realize that everyone wins if you get the state out of licensing marriages at all.

+1

[libertybrewcity]

this is good for liberty.

[charrob]

they really ought to go the extra step and allow any two people who want to get a civil union to get one.

i remember reading Washington State wanted to have this because there are alot of elderly people there who live with their elderly sister, brother, etc. and whose spouses have already passed. But Sarah Palin opened her big trap about it and made a fuss and the state ended up voting against it.

since the civil union part of marriage has more to do with gov't benefits than anything else, why should marrieds be the only ones who benefit from this?

[healthpellets]

so at what point do the citizens of a state actually get to decide how bigoted their state is?

[Rael]

This is gay.

[Rael]

Seriously though, the headline should read "Gays Given Right To Marry and Be Miserable Just Like Heterosexuals"

Why ANYONE would want to be involved in a state approved marriage is beyond me.

[00_Pete]

Where i live, 6 months ago, [gay] marriage was legalized...only 3 [homosexuals] married until now...

They are a bunch of facist angry children that just want to occupy territory and ultimatly, completly control the society just like they did in Greece, Rome and Germany.

And shouldnt they get their own thing? Why dont they get their own thing?

The Modal-libertarians and the Orwellian Commies have a lot in common i see...

[Humanae Libertas]

I don't like gay marriage. I think its gross, but it's not my say in to tell people what to do.

Frankly, I'd much rather see marriage privatized again.

[dannno]

They are a bunch of facist angry children that just want to occupy territory and ultimatly, completly control the society just like they did in Greece, Rome and Germany.


No, I think most of them are individuals who wish to be treated equally by the government.

[ChaosControl]

they really ought to go the extra step and allow any two people who want to get a civil union to get one.

Why two? I don't see any reason we should limit the number of consenting individuals who can sign a contractual union with one another. I think any combination of individuals able to consent should be able to have a "civil union".

[furface]

9th Circuit Northern CA district? Is anybody really surprised? If the US Supreme Court mandates that States have to recognize gay marriage, there's going to be a revolution in the US. So I guess we should all hope that happens. What will likely happen is that the Supreme Court will issue one of their rare rulings in favor of State Rights.


The Equal Protection argument will be shot down in a flash. CA's prop 13 is completely unfair and unequal, yet it was upheld in the Supreme Court.

[ChaosControl]

If the US Supreme Court mandates that States have to recognize gay marriage, there's going to be a revolution in the US.

No, there wont be. The only way people will revolt is if they are starving. No one revolts by the government allowing an activity.

[Bman]

They are a bunch of facist angry children that just want to occupy territory and ultimatly, completly control the society just like they did in Greece, Rome and Germany.


I take it you don't know any gay people, or at least any who have told you they are gay.


And shouldnt they get their own thing? Why dont they get their own thing?


Because gubberment is involved in the first place.

[furface]

No, there wont be. The only way people will revolt is if they are starving. No one revolts by the government allowing an activity.

Look at the Iranian revolution when they threw the Shah out. Nobody was starving. That was completely ideological. Similar for the first American Revolution. It was basically about taxes and self-determination. I think it could happen again, and something as emotionally charged as gay marriage could pull the trigger.

[WaltM]

so what now, bankrupted state full of illegal immigrants and pot smokers? Vote again?

[Golding]

I'm only halfway glad with the decision. They rightfully determined that the government has no business restricting couples from marrying, without recognizing that the government has no business in instituting marriage licenses altogether.

[Reason]

Get marriage out of the government, yes....

But in the mean time, provide it equally.

This.

[nate895]

I do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, God will judge this country for allowing these things to happen and abandoning our Christian heritage. He already is judging Europe for her sins, how long can He rest until He judges us?

We are as Israel was in the days of the prophets. Despite all the reminders of our Christian heritage that are chiseled on the very halls of power in this country, we ignore them at our own peril and do not teach our children what they mean. Can we violate the greatest command and expect the rest of the Law to protect us from the hordes of blasphemers more emboldened than ever by the acceptance of their behavior as normal?


26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Also see:

http://www.massresistance.org/

[Standing Like A Rock]

Any man has the God given right to marry a woman, but he does not have the God given right to marry another man. Gay marriage is an oxymoron because marriage is a religious term and no God fearing church would allow two men to marry each other.

[Bruno]

Get marriage out of the government, yes....

But in the mean time, provide it equally.

nailed it

[ChaosControl]

Look at the Iranian revolution when they threw the Shah out. Nobody was starving. That was completely ideological. Similar for the first American Revolution. It was basically about taxes and self-determination. I think it could happen again, and something as emotionally charged as gay marriage could pull the trigger.

People aren't like they were during the American Revolution, people are used to the oppressor of government and are satisfied with it. I guarantee, the American people wouldn't even revolt if the government put cameras in everyone's home to monitor them "for their safety". Only if people started starving to death would you see some serious calls for revolution with action following.

This issue certainly wouldn't be one to trigger it, people will get over it just like they got over interracial marriages.

[specsaregood]

Any man has the God given right to marry a woman, but he does not have the God given right to marry another man. Gay marriage is an oxymoron because marriage is a religious term and no God fearing church would allow two men to marry each other.

It seems that you think your God is the same God that all worship. I assure you, that is not the case. And we do have Freedom of religion in this country.

[nate895]

Any man has the God given right to marry a woman, but he does not have the God given right to marry another man. Gay marriage is an oxymoron because marriage is a religious term and no God fearing church would allow two men to marry each other.

The reason why this is being allowed to happen in our society is because our the church in the United States is anemic and refuses to stand on the infallible word of God, and instead bows to the culture and what secular Academia accepts to be the truth. If we have any hope of reclaiming America for true Christian liberty, it is high time our churches bow the knee and refuse to comprise that Jesus is Lord, and His word is truth.

[dannno]

I do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be

Then don't do it.

If somebody else wants to do it, who are you to use force and tell them not to :confused: If somebody else says that jilauphony tastes really good, and you don't think there is any such thing as jilauphony and you believe that believing that such a thing as jilauphony exists is blasphemous to God, then you have every right... but you don't have the right to send police to somebody else's house to take their jilauphony, you don't have the right to tell people not to hunt jilauphony on their property, you don't have the right to tell people not to use the word jilauphony. Period. Period.

Why should the state give benefits to one group and not another :confused:

It's like you want to steal from something that you believe doesn't exist.

Get the government OUT of marriage.. but if they are going to provide it, they have to provide it equally. Period. That's the only form of government that has any semblance of morality, is one that gives back equally to citizens that which it takes.

You seem to be arguing for an immoral form of government. How can you as a Christian do such a thing?

[nate895]

It seems that you think your God is the same God that all worship. I assure you, that is not the case. And we do have Freedom of religion in this country.

Our God actually exists:


6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. [1]
Let him declare and set it before me,
since I appointed an ancient people.
Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
8 Fear not, nor be afraid;
have I not told you from of old and declared it?
And you are my witnesses!
Is there a God besides me?
There is no Rock; I know not any.”

[specsaregood]

The reason why this is being allowed to happen in our society is because our the church in the United States is anemic and refuses to stand on the infallible word of God, and instead bows to the culture and what secular Academia accepts to be the truth. If we have any hope of reclaiming America for true Christian liberty, it is high time our churches bow the knee and refuse to comprise that Jesus is Lord, and His word is truth.

Or perhaps the problem is the churches got in bed with the government in the first place. And continue to do so to push social issues.

[specsaregood]

Our God actually exists:

I'm happy for you. However, I could post "religious" script from dozens of other religions where the believers would say the exact same thing.

[Agorism]

I'm fine with this ruling.

[nate895]

Then don't do it. If somebody else wants to do it, who are you to use force and tell them not to :confused: If somebody else says that jilauphony tastes really good, and you don't think there is any such thing as jilauphony and you believe that believing that such a thing as jilauphony exists is blasphemous to God, then you have every right... but you don't have the right to send police to somebody else's house to take their jilauphony, you don't have the right to tell people not to hunt jilauphony, you don't have the right to tell people not to use the word jilauphony. Period. Period.

Why should the state give benefits to one group and not another :confused:

Because the state is a minister of God, and when it does not submit to His authority its people and itself will be judged; though, God will preserve His people.

As for your analogy, it does not fit. Marriage actually exists and is a creation ordinance. Recognizing it beyond the creation ordinance of man and woman is basically attempting to create something God does not ordain and recognize, and will therefore be subject to judgment.

[dannno]

If we have any hope of reclaiming America for true Christian liberty, it is high time our churches bow the knee and refuse to comprise that Jesus is Lord, and His word is truth.

Nothing in ANY gay marriage law FORCES churches to marry gay people. So you should be perfectly content with all pro-gay marriage legislation, less that it doesn't take the authority away from government.

[low preference guy]

Because the state is a minister of God, and when it does not submit to His authority its people and itself will be judged

lol.

can't wait to read dannno's response.

[nate895]

Or perhaps the problem is the churches got in bed with the government in the first place. And continue to do so to push social issues.

The church has abandoned preaching on social issues because of being in bed with the government. The church should resist the state when it is usurping the church's authority or is attempting to force the church into subjugation, as the state has done via the tax code. It should also remind the state that it is too a minister of God, just as the church is, and is therefore to obey the Law of God and be a terror to evildoers (Romans 13:1-7).

[JohnEngland]

This decision is ultimately meaningless. Government can decree whatever it wants (heck, it can inform us that from now on, the colour blue shall be known as red) - but it can't change the fundamental truths about humanity and natural law.

Man and woman are designed for each other. The purpose of these differences is for the procreation of the species. Sexual relations serve the purpose of raising a family.

It's interesting how the more one has to defend marriage from government decrees like this, the more one gains a better understanding of Catholic social teaching. At least, this has been my experience. Libertarianism is meaningless unless one understands human nature and natural law.

To the critics who say it's "imposing religion", the reply should be, "on the contrary - it's imposing reason."

[dannno]

Because the state is a minister of God

Whose God?!


It sounds like you want freedom for Christians, but you don't want freedom for individuals.. Which to me, is not very Christian.

[Bruno]

Because the state is a minister of God, and when it does not submit to His authority its people and itself will be judged; though, God will preserve His people.

As for your analogy, it does not fit. Marriage actually exists and is a creation ordinance. Recognizing it beyond the creation ordinance of man and woman is basically attempting to create something God does not ordain and recognize, and will therefore be subject to judgment.

Did God create the tax deductions and privileges associated with marriage? No, man did.

You could argue that God created everything, and that attempting to man's attempt to create something that God did not create would be subject to judgment.

[furface]

To the people arguing what way government should look at gay marriage or any other issue for that matter, you miss the point. People should have the right to get together and form whatever types of governments they like. If you want to start a theocracy, go ahead, just don't force me to be part of it.

State Rights are a major part of Ron Paul's ideology. I don't know exactly what he has to say about it, but I'm pretty sure he'd agree that it should be up to the States to decide.

Not that RP is the final word, but come on, do you really not see the hypocrisy in telling me what kind of government I should accept when you don't want that done to yourself?

[dannno]

This decision is ultimately meaningless. Government can decree whatever it wants (heck, it can inform us that from now on, the colour blue shall be known as red) - but it can't change the fundamental truths about humanity and natural law.

Man and woman are designed for each other. The purpose of these differences is for the procreation of the species. Sexual relations serve the purpose of raising a family.



Sexual relations also serve as a form of stress relief. It's a proven fact :rolleyes:


Soooo... ya, guess what? Straight people have gay kids. They also have straight kids. Those straight kids will one day have more kids, some of them will be gay. There will always be gay people, there will always be straight people. I don't know why Christians get so hung up on gay people.

[specsaregood]

The church has abandoned preaching on social issues because of being in bed with the government.

It seems quite some time ago the churches decided it was easier to force their beliefs on people through the power of the government, rather than have to deal with that whole "free will" thing. This law is actually an example of this. So you should support repealing this law.



The church should resist the state when it is usurping the church's authority or is attempting to force the church into subjugation, as the state has done via the tax code.
To this we agree.

You should support repealing the gay marriage ban and then support repealing all marriage laws. Return it to the church.

[nate895]

Nothing in ANY gay marriage law FORCES churches to marry gay people. So you should be perfectly content with all pro-gay marriage legislation, less that it doesn't take the authority away from government.

Actually, due to anti-discrimination laws, churches have already capitulated (which they should not do, even if it means death) and allowed gay marriages to take place. Furthermore, it is not about the church being forced to accept gay marriage, it is about anyone, anywhere accepting the practice. It is a violation of the Law of God, and the state is bound to enforce certain sections thereof. It is the duty of the church to preach the Law-word and Gospel to the nations and make disciples of them. Since the state is not following God's Law-word as it is bound to do, it is therefore the duty of the church to stand up and say no to state-recognized gay marriage.

Furthermore "It does not force churches, therefore you should be fine with it," is a non sequitur.
A
/B
=Logic Fail.

[Bruno]

This decision is ultimately meaningless. Government can decree whatever it wants (heck, it can inform us that from now on, the colour blue shall be known as red) - but it can't change the fundamental truths about humanity and natural law.

Man and woman are designed for each other. The purpose of these differences is for the procreation of the species. Sexual relations serve the purpose of raising a family.

It's interesting how the more one has to defend marriage from government decrees like this, the more one gains a better understanding of Catholic social teaching. At least, this has been my experience. Libertarianism is meaningless unless one understands human nature and natural law.

To the critics who say it's "imposing religion", the reply should be, "on the contrary - it's imposing reason."

How many children do you have? If you have less children than the number of times you have had sex, or have had sex at any time other than to attempt to procreate, you prove by your own actions there are more reasons than for the purpose of procreation to have sex.

[dannno]

State Rights are a major part of Ron Paul's ideology. I don't know exactly what he has to say about it, but I'm pretty sure he'd agree that it should be up to the States to decide.




At the Federal level he does agree that it should be up to states to decide how to deal with marriage, but at the state level he doesn't believe that marriage should be a state function and that gay people should be able to get married if they want to.

[low preference guy]

The church has abandoned preaching on social issues because of being in bed with the government. The church should resist the state when it is usurping the church's authority or is attempting to force the church into subjugation, as the state has done via the tax code. It should also remind the state that it is too a minister of God, just as the church is, and is therefore to obey the Law of God and be a terror to evildoers (Romans 13:1-7).

Arguments with Bible citations belong to the religion forum. Please move this crap out of General Politics.

[furface]

At the Federal level he does agree that it should be up to states to decide how to deal with marriage, but at the state level he doesn't believe that marriage should be a state function and that gay people should be able to get married if they want to.

Which is basically what I believe. Only to clarify, gay people can have their marriage recognized by whatever authority they want to listen to, but not the state which will not recognize marriage one way or another. It's still up to States to decide, though.

[dannno]

Actually, due to anti-discrimination laws, churches have already capitulated (which they should not do, even if it means death) and allowed gay marriages to take place.


I don't agree that the state should force churches to marry gay people, I would say 90%+ people who support gay marriage don't agree with that. It goes against the whole idea of religious freedom. Let's face it, it was a stupid decision made by a stupid judge somewhere. If THE GOVERNMENT is going to have state sanctioned marriages, they need to give them out equally. That is what most people believe.




Furthermore, it is not about the church being forced to accept gay marriage, it is about anyone, anywhere accepting the practice. It is a violation of the Law of God, and the state is bound to enforce certain sections thereof. It is the duty of the church to preach the Law-word and Gospel to the nations and make disciples of them. Since the state is not following God's Law-word as it is bound to do, it is therefore the duty of the church to stand up and say no to state-recognized gay marriage.

Furthermore "It does not force churches, therefore you should be fine with it," is a non sequitur.
A
/B
=Logic Fail.



To insinuate that the state should be forcing everybody to live a Christian lifestyle is ridiculous.

[JohnEngland]

How many children do you have? If you have less children than the number of times you have had sex, or have had sex at any time other than to attempt to procreate, you prove by your own actions there are more reasons than for the purpose of procreation to have sex.

But this is missing the fundamental reason we have things called "males" and other things called "females" - why the males carry sperm and the females carry eggs - why males get erections and ejaculate semen and why females ovulate once a month - why the bond between a sperm cell and egg creates of new human being.

The purpose of sex is procreation. This is why sex exists.

This is also why institutions like the Catholic church will always be against 1) homosexual acts 2) contraception 3) sex outside marriage. However as a libertarian, I'm not going to stop people from doing these things (and marriage certainly should be privatised) but there's no getting away from natural law.

[furface]

I don't agree that the state should force churches to marry gay people, I would say 90%+ people who support gay marriage don't agree with that.

I have to agree with the "gay agenda" people in that there is a greater social engineering motivation in what they're trying to accomplish. They want society, being forced to by government, to give them a stamp of approval on their way of life. This is what I really dislike about the gay marriage movement. It's a highly authoritarian movement. If they were really about equality, they would fight to get states to stop recognizing marriage for everybody.

[nate895]

It seems quite some time ago the churches decided it was easier to force their beliefs on people through the power of the government, rather than have to deal with that whole "free will" thing. This law is actually an example of this. So you should support repealing this law.

I do not think the state should enforce Christianity on the population, that is true, the duty of the state is to be a terror to public evildoers. If you violate the Law flagrantly (at least a section that is still effectual), it is then time for the state to step in and enforce appropriate punishments. In reality, this is not as bad as most people think it would be since the Law that would be in effect in today's world would only require death in an extremely limited number of cases. The laws that most libertarians object to being enforced do not even get broken anyway except in San Francisco and Boston on gay pride week.


To this we agree.

You should support repealing the gay marriage ban and then support repealing all marriage laws. Return it to the church.

While I would say to return it to the family of the woman involved instead of the church (that is the Biblical precedent), we are in general agreement.

[nate895]

Arguments with Bible citations belong to the religion forum. Please move this crap out of General Politics.

No.

[Vessol]

I do not think the state should enforce Christianity on the population, that is true, the duty of the state is to be a terror to public evildoers. If you violate the Law flagrantly (at least a section that is still effectual), it is then time for the state to step in and enforce appropriate punishments. In reality, this is not as bad as most people think it would be since the Law that would be in effect in today's world would only require death in an extremely limited number of cases. The laws that most libertarians object to being enforced do not even get broken anyway except in San Francisco and Boston on gay pride week.

What about taxation?

[nate895]

How many children do you have? If you have less children than the number of times you have had sex, or have had sex at any time other than to attempt to procreate, you prove by your own actions there are more reasons than for the purpose of procreation to have sex.

While I would agree there are more reasons to have sex than procreation, and many conservative Christians (including my own congregation, sadly enough) are too prudish about sex, I would also say that it is possible to have sex only for the purposes of having children and to have kids less times than you have sex. That is due to the possibility of failure to conceive. Failure to complete your objective does not mean a changing in the reason for a particular action.

[Bruno]

But this is missing the fundamental reason we have things called "males" and other things called "females" - why the males carry sperm and the females carry eggs - why males get erections and ejaculate semen and why females ovulate once a month - why the bond between a sperm cell and egg creates of new human being.

The purpose of sex is procreation. This is why sex exists.

This is also why institutions like the Catholic church will always be against 1) homosexual acts 2) contraception 3) sex outside marriage. However as a libertarian, I'm not going to stop people from doing these things (and marriage certainly should be privatised) but there's no getting away from natural law.

The purpose of eating if nurishment to survive. This is why our digestive system exists.

But people also eat for enjoyment, and find many ways to enjoy food beyond what nature (or God) created as necessary for survival.

[furface]

This is also why institutions like the Catholic church will always be against 1) homosexual acts 2) contraception 3) sex outside marriage.

I might agree with 1 and 3, but the purpose of 2 is to propagate the church. Where contraception goes, churches diminish. This is a geographically provable fact.

[nate895]

To insinuate that the state should be forcing everybody to live a Christian lifestyle is ridiculous.

Is that what I said? No. I simply said it is the duty of the state to enforce certain laws, and only those laws. As long as you do not flagrantly violate the civil law, you can live life as a grass worshiper for all the Law says about it. It is not the state's duty to enforce beliefs onto a society, but only certain, limited outward behaviors.

[ChaosControl]

The purpose of eating if nurishment to survive. This is why our digestive system exists.

But people also eat for enjoyment, and find many ways to enjoy food beyond what nature (or God) created as necessary for survival.

People would be far more healthy though if they ate as was intended.

[nate895]

What about taxation?

What about it?

[Bruno]

While I would agree there are more reasons to have sex than procreation, and many conservative Christians (including my own congregation, sadly enough) are too prudish about sex, I would also say that it is possible to have sex only for the purposes of having children and to have kids less times than you have sex. That is due to the possibility of failure to conceive. Failure to complete your objective does not mean a changing in the reason for a particular action.

Certainly. But the percentage of people who actually have sex only for the purpose of conceiving, or continuing to try to conceive and only when they think ovulation is a possibility and therefore are have sex, is very, very low.

Sex is something most consenting adults do far more often than just when they are trying to conceive. They do it for pleasure, and there should be nothing wrong with that, no matter how or with whom it is done.


People would be far more healthy though if they ate as was intended.

Couldn't agree more! :)

[Vessol]

What about it?

What if I refuse to pay my taxes?

Under your governmental system, public "evildoers" would be punished.

Wouldn't tax-evaders be under this category? Afterall, what does the State depend upon for its continued existence?

[dannno]

The purpose of sex is procreation. This is why sex exists.



Um, again, it also provides a great amount of stress relief for the individual.

If done homosexually, sex can provide stress relief without creating more individuals which those individuals should be responsible for.

[Peace&Freedom]

Get marriage out of the government, yes....

But in the mean time, provide it equally.

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.

[johngr]

Why two? I don't see any reason we should limit the number of consenting individuals who can sign a contractual union with one another. I think any combination of individuals able to consent should be able to have a "civil union".

Why limit it to humans? Shouldn't someone be able to marry his dog if he wants to. For that matter, why limit it to sentient beings?

[furface]

For that matter, why limit it to sentient beings?

I heard someone married Sarah Palin. Maybe it's just a rumor.

[dannno]

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

You seem to have it backwards, it is currently straight groups which receive group privilege.



Get the government out of marriage, period.

Yes, and if they are going to provide it, it should be provided to ALL INDIVIDUALS equally, not just straight people, that is a group privilege.

[nate895]

Certainly. But the percentage of people who actually have sex only for the purpose of conceiving, or continuing to try to conceive and only when they think ovulation is a possibility and therefore are have sex, is very, very low.

Sex is something most consenting adults do far more often than just when they are trying to conceive. They do it for pleasure, and there should be nothing wrong with that, no matter how or with whom it is done.

It is not wrong to have sex for pleasure if it is between husband and wife (Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with unless there are intervening circumstances), the Song of Solomon makes that clear. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to have sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse (or becoming your spouse).

[Vessol]

It is not wrong to have sex for pleasure if it is between husband and wife (Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with unless there are intervening circumstances), the Song of Solomon makes that clear. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to have sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse (or becoming your spouse).

And what should be the punishment for that?

[JohnEngland]

The purpose of eating if nurishment to survive. This is why our digestive system exists.

But people also eat for enjoyment, and find many ways to enjoy food beyond what nature (or God) created as necessary for survival.

Yes, this is true. But we enjoy food because of biological factors, such as the sensors of the tongue. This is how we taste and judge whether something is pleasing or unpleasant.

However, with food, we can always damage ourselves. Notice how many of the things we really enjoy to eat are also usually a detriment to our body in some way. We can become obese, ill, slothful, die and a whole host of other things that, though we may be designed for consuming food, we (as individuals) must be careful to moderate, regulate and manage correctly.

Sex may be utilised for purposes other than it's fundamental reason for existing, but abuse of this biological function can, like food, be detrimental - and not just for biological reasons, like disease. Problems of promiscuity, hedonism, family breakdown, pornography, abortion, divorce and so on can surely all be asociated to some degree with these extended uses of sex.

But, as I say, government shouldn't be involved in regulated our affairs - though people should work to create a better, more moral and self-regulating society.

[dannno]

Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with

Wow, so Biblically there is no such thing as pre-marital sex since whoever you first have sex with you become married to :confused:

Amazing how backwards Christianity is today.

[nate895]

What if I refuse to pay my taxes?

Under your governmental system, public "evildoers" would be punished.

Wouldn't tax-evaders be under this category? Afterall, what does the State depend upon for its continued existence?

I am not up on my taxes in a Christian commonwealth, what they are, and how they are enforced, but I will try to research the subject to give an adequate answer eventually. What I do know is that the Bible does not command you to pay the ridiculous levels of taxation we experience today, and taxes would be nowhere near as high in a Biblical society. What I do not know is what kind of taxes would be collected, nor what percentage they would be.

[nate895]

Wow, so Biblically there is no such thing as pre-marital sex since whoever you first have sex with you become married to :confused:

Theoretically, what has to happen Biblically in order to be married in that way is that the woman would inform her father, who would either consent or forbid the union. If the father consented, then the union would be in effect from the time the couple had sexual relations. Basically, it is a way to get a stubborn, pig-headed father to agree to a marriage.


Amazing how backwards Christianity is today.

Edit: Chronological Snobbery.

[nate895]

And what should be the punishment for that?

Eternity in hell. Unless you did it out in the open, there would be no temporal punishment enforced by the state.

[low preference guy]

Eternity in hell. Unless you did it out in the open, there would be no temporal punishment enforced by the state.

That's why you guy thinks only 144,000 will go to heaven right?

[Bruno]

Theoretically, what has to happen Biblically in order to be married in that way is that the woman would inform her father, who would either consent or forbid the union. If the father consented, then the union would be in effect from the time the couple had sexual relations. Basically, it is a way to get a stubborn, pig-headed father to agree to a marriage.



Edit: Chronological Snobbery.

So, Biblically, the woman is the property of the father until she gets married?

[LibertyVox]

Marriage laws in much of the Union actually discourage marriage.

[haaaylee]

I do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, God will judge this country for allowing these things to happen and abandoning our Christian heritage. He already is judging Europe for her sins, how long can He rest until He judges us?

We are as Israel was in the days of the prophets. Despite all the reminders of our Christian heritage that are chiseled on the very halls of power in this country, we ignore them at our own peril and do not teach our children what they mean. Can we violate the greatest command and expect the rest of the Law to protect us from the hordes of blasphemers more emboldened than ever by the acceptance of their behavior as normal?



Also see:

http://www.massresistance.org/



Uhhhhh . . . .

[nate895]

So, Biblically, the woman is the property of the father until she gets married?

No. The woman is under the headship of her father, but she is not property. The father only has veto authority. You can see that they are not property because the father has to specifically forbid the daughter from going through with a promise, but silence means that the daughter can fulfill the promise. Property must be specifically allowed to do something, and silence indicates being forbidden from doing something.

[haaaylee]

Our God actually exists:

OHHHH! 'cos it was written down in a book, that makes him real. Hmm.

Weird how he seems to have so many similarities to Gods of many other cultures. Such as Egypt.


OH I KNOW. the devil did it.

[LibertyVox]

It is not wrong to have sex for pleasure if it is between husband and wife (Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with unless there are intervening circumstances), the Song of Solomon makes that clear. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to have sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse (or becoming your spouse).

That may all well be true. But you have to come around the lowest common denominator that binds us: keep the fucking govt. out of it. A government issuing marriage licenses???

[American Nationalist]

This is a Constitutionally sound decision, in line with the 14th Amendment. We need to keep religion out of civil marriage ceremonies. And if Christians feel so strongly about gays getting civil marriage licenses, they should push to take the State out of marriage to begin with, not implement state enforced bigotry through mob rule like in Prop 8

[Peace&Freedom]

You seem to have it backwards, it is currently straight groups which receive group privilege.

Yes, and if they are going to provide it, it should be provided to ALL INDIVIDUALS equally, not just straight people, that is a group privilege.

I have it forwards. It is not the role of government to 'provide' marriage at all, let alone to groups using individualist talking points. There is no 'right' to marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. Adding to government privileges does not reduce the state, it further expands it.

Get government out of marriage, period. Not after a 'surge' from adding gay privileges to the mix. END privileges, shrink government now. No 'meantime,' NOW.

[RokiLothbard]

The problem comes when they force other private entities to "recognize" gaymarriage. And they will. Are you an employee who'd like to provide health insurance for spouses? Do you consider gay marriage to be an oxymoron? Tough shit. You will be PC or we will shoot you.

[dannno]

The problem comes when they force other private entities to "recognize" gaymarriage. And they will. Are you an employee who'd like to provide health insurance for spouses? Do you consider gay marriage to be an oxymoron? Tough shit. You will be PC or we will shoot you.

Well that's like saying we shouldn't legalize cannabis because some people who use cannabis might want to force everybody to use it.

[LibertyVox]

The problem comes when they force other private entities to "recognize" gaymarriage. And they will. Are you an employee who'd like to provide health insurance for spouses? Do you consider gay marriage to be an oxymoron? Tough shit. You will be PC or we will shoot you.

In either case, we should resist coercion. Two wrong don't make a right and inorder to prevent one wrong we shouldn't oppose a right.
I have become cynical about incrementalism seeing the hyppocroisy and so called "pragmatism", nevertheless I see it as one peaceful way to bring about organic changes in society.

As an example: many who support gay marriage, would be against polygamy or incest. Hyppocritical. But then again many "support" gay marriage out of psuedo-progressiveness of acceptance tolerance rather than the principle of the thing.

That's where the genius of Dr. Ron Paul is.

[Bruno]

No. The woman is under the headship of her father, but she is not property. The father only has veto authority. You can see that they are not property because the father has to specifically forbid the daughter from going through with a promise, but silence means that the daughter can fulfill the promise. Property must be specifically allowed to do something, and silence indicates being forbidden from doing something.

Thanks for clarifying.


It is not wrong to have sex for pleasure if it is between husband and wife (Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with unless there are intervening circumstances), the Song of Solomon makes that clear. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to have sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse (or becoming your spouse).

The Bible is full of sexual strangeness, so I don't believe we should look there to enact laws that punish some for their sexual activities, and promote and enrich others for theirs.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm


That may all well be true. But you have to come around the lowest common denominator that binds us: keep the fucking govt. out of it. A government issuing marriage licenses???

But this is really the bottom line.

[American Nationalist]

Well that's like saying we shouldn't legalize cannabis because some people who use cannabis might want to force everybody to use it.

It is also like opposing Love V. Virginia because a company might have to recognize an interracial marriage. Of course companies should be able to set their own policies, but the state should not be able to enforce racism through force.

[zach]

Just remember that some people want to be happy without interfering with others, and wanting to be considered "equal" in the eyes of society and/or government is all that most (if not all) people want regardless of their labeling.

Not all non-straight people want to take the moral territory of the country and sodomize the Earth's christian churches, and not all straight people want to preserve the current status quo and make babies in front of gay people at pagan festivals either.

[LibertyVox]

Just remember that some people want to be happy without interfering with others, and wanting to be considered "equal" in the eyes of society and/or government is all that most (if not all) people want regardless of their labeling.

Not all non-straight people want to take the moral territory of the country and sodomize the Earth's christian churches, and not all straight people want to preserve the current status quo and make babies in front of gay people at pagan festivals either.

One shouldn't even have to say that...but I guess we need reminders from time to time.

[RokiLothbard]

Well that's like saying we shouldn't legalize cannabis because some people who use cannabis might want to force everybody to use it.

No it isn't. Smoking cannabis will get you put in jail. Being gay, and living together, and calling your parther yor husband wont. Name any substantive right/privilege that comes with being married and I have no problem with being for gay people having same right, and/or revoking the privilege (at least I haven't thought of any exceptions to this yet). Even if all that happened, this court decision would have been the same, and you'd still have PC types complaining ahout oppression. Because this isn't about tolerance, it is about forced-at-gunpoint acceptance.

[zach]

One shouldn't even have to say that...but I guess we need reminders from time to time.

We get so caught up with our beliefs and convictions that we don't listen to each other much anymore. :o

[Standing Like A Rock]

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.

Nailed it.

Just because the state wrongfully gives one group special rights, does not mean that they should give other groups special rights too. Last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.

It seems that most of you who are in favor of this decision say that the government should be out of marriage altogether, but for the time being, if they are in it, it might as well be given to gay couples and straight couples.

That kind of thinking is the same as saying that if marijuana is illegal and people that like marijuana cannot use it, then alcohol should also be illegal so that people who like alcohol cannot use it and it is equal for everyone.

[AuH20]

Can the state force churches to wed homosexuals? That's crossing a pretty big line in my mind. Why not just legalize marriage certificates for same sex couples and get it over with.

[RokiLothbard]

In either case, we should resist coercion. Two wrong don't make a right and inorder to prevent one wrong we shouldn't oppose a right.
I have become cynical about incrementalism seeing the hyppocroisy and so called "pragmatism", nevertheless I see it as one peaceful way to bring about organic changes in society.

As an example: many who support gay marriage, would be against polygamy or incest. Hyppocritical. But then again many "support" gay marriage out of psuedo-progressiveness of acceptance tolerance rather than the principle of the thing.

That's where the genius of Dr. Ron Paul is.

I agree with this. I forsee the net amount of coercion rising as a result of this ruling. If I'm wrong, good for all of us.

[RokiLothbard]

Can the state force churches to wed homosexuals? That's crossing a pretty big line in my mind. Why not just legalize marriage certificates for same sex couples and get it over with.

I dont't think that is really on the table at all.

[AuH20]

I dont't think that is really on the table at all.

What if they threaten to pull non-profit status. If the feds want to, they can easily make it happen. Maybe it's not likely, then again I won't put anything past them.

[LibertyVox]

P
eace&Freedom:

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.



Nailed it.

Just because the state wrongfully gives one group special rights, does not mean that they should give other groups special rights too. Last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.

It seems that most of you who are in favor of this decision say that the government should be out of marriage altogether, but for the time being, if they are in it, it might as well be given to gay couples and straight couples.

That kind of thinking is the same as saying that if marijuana is illegal and people that like marijuana cannot use it, then alcohol should also be illegal so that people who like alcohol cannot use it and it is equal for everyone.

Natural rights do belong to individuals and they are not derived from the government.
Judiciary is not there to give rights. It is only there to up hold the constitution. The constitution I contend, is a libertarian document. That's why you see such support for "gay" "rights". More properly put we support rights of individuals who are homosexual and recognize that we cannot enpower anyone (politician, government official, ballot box) to take away rights from someone else, because we ourselves do not have the right to do that to another individual.

Churches have the right to oppose homosexual marriages, and refuse to serve them in their congregation. Pastors and priests also have the right not to marry them, if the homosexual individuals claim to be xtian and want a traditional xtian marriage. But another pastor or rabbi may see no problem with that.

Either way, keep the government out of what people do.

If gays will burn in hell. Let them bear that cross. And I believe they shall do so gladly.



That kind of thinking is the same as saying that if marijuana is illegal and people that like marijuana cannot use it, then alcohol should also be illegal so that people who like alcohol cannot use it and it is equal for everyone.


Actually the logic is opposite of that. It is positive not negative. If alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijuana?
Even when evidence points that alcohol is cent percent more deleterious and causes more deaths than the good root.

[RokiLothbard]

Another take on this. This use of the 14th ammendment is very very lame.

1) can a state ban incest? How bout age of consent. That is by definition, uneqal treatment.

2) i agree that the federal income tax treament for married people is unequal treatment under the law. But why stop at only comparing to gaymarried people? The whole damn tax code is nothing but a big pile of exceptions and special breaks and penalties. So if they want to implement a fe facto flat tax on everybody in the name of equal protection , then Im all for it. Until then this ruling is like some kind of big Orwellian parody: "some people are more equal than others"

[Peace&Freedom]

Natural rights do belong to individuals and they are not derived from the government.
Judiciary is not there to give rights. It is only there to up hold the constitution. The constitution I contend, is libertarian document. That's why you see such support for "gay" "rights". More properly put we support rights of individuals who are homosexual and recognize that we cannot enpower anyone (politician, government official, ballot box) to take away rights from someones else. because we do not have the right to do that to another individual.

Churches have the right to oppose homosexual marriages, and refuse to serve them in their congrgation. Pastors, and priests also have the right not to marry them, if they some into the churches or claim to be xtian or whatever. But another pastor or rabbi may see no problem with that.

Either way, keep the government out of what people do.

If gays will burn in hell. Let them bear that cross.


Typically, in countries where 'gay rights' have been codified into law, churches have progressively lost all rights to oppose homosexuality, including teaching against it from the pulpit. They have rights because they are individuals, not because they are gay. But the emphasis on protecting them as gays is a privilege, which comes at the expense of individual rights, and even religious freedom to oppose them as a group.

What other historic religious rites should also be diluted into state group priveleges? If a government judge next decrees that there shalt be gay communions, and gay baptisms, or gay Passion plays, should Christians be told to butt out of that government power grab too, "in the name of liberty"?

[RokiLothbard]

What if they threaten to pull non-profit status. If the feds want to, they can easily make it happen. Maybe it's not likely, then again I won't put anything past them.

If that happens, it'll be in the very long run. We'll all be screwed by that point in time and this will be a very minor point by then. Having adequate ammo will be much more important.

[LibertyVox]

Typically, in countries where 'gay rights' have been codified into law, churches have progressively lost all rights to oppose homosexuality, including teaching against it from the pulpit. They have rights because they are individuals, not because they are gay. But the emphasis on protecting them as gays is a privilege, which comes at the expense of individual rights, and even religious freedom to oppose them as a group.

What other historic religious rites should also be diluted into state group priveleges? If a government judge next decrees that there shalt be gay communions, and gay baptisms, or gay Passion plays, should Christians be told to butt out of that government power grab too, "in the name of liberty"?

Those countries do not have a liberal constitution. I would label their anti speech laws as progressive. Any such move in out republic would be against the constitution so we need not worry about that.
And I don't see removing the government out of an issue which should be left between individuals, their institutions, scripture and God or the lack of all that come at the expense of individual rights? Just the opposite.

No the government shouldn't do all that. And it would not happen because it would be unconstitutional. It could happen, however, if we ignore the constitution and actually start believing in the sanctity group feelings and democracy.

[American Nationalist]

This is also why institutions like the Catholic church will always be against 1) homosexual acts 2) contraception 3) sex outside marriage. However as a libertarian, I'm not going to stop people from doing these things (and marriage certainly should be privatised) but there's no getting away from natural law.

And the Catholic Church hierarchy does and protects all 3...with Children. Quite frankly hypocrites like the Catholic Church have no right to dictate what consenting adults do from a moral pedestal.

[American Nationalist]

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.

Libertarians don't support Mob Rule, and believe in checks and balances where the courts check unconstitutional laws.

[James Madison]

Can the state force churches to wed homosexuals? That's crossing a pretty big line in my mind. Why not just legalize marriage certificates for same sex couples and get it over with.

Why not just eliminate all government involvement in marriage?

[Vessol]

Why not just eliminate all government involvement in marriage?

My preferred solution.

[Southron]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

[TonySutton]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

I think many of us here consider the 16th Amendment unconstitutional.

[thehunter]

I oppose the government (any branch) redefining marriage much like I oppose a government initiative to legislate the sky into being any colour you want it to be -- allowing such basic authority to rest with such a body will only further the hindrance of liberty.

[nobody's_hero]

The Federal Court system is on a roll!

Chicago gun laws, immigration, homosexuals, and the year isn't even up yet.

If this keeps up, we should be able to just do away with the states, altogether, by New Year's. Let everything be settled at the highest level of government from here onward.

[07041826]

Why limit it to humans? Shouldn't someone be able to marry his dog if he wants to. For that matter, why limit it to sentient beings?

A dog cannot give verifiable consent to marry and cannot enter into a legal or spiritual agreement.

[QueenB4Liberty]

The part that sucks is convincing everyone that the state should be out of marriage because "it's always been that way." Sometimes I want to slam my head down on the desk...these people don't get it. I wonder if the state issuing marriage licenses affects the divorce rate. I mean, if there were no benefits from the state to be given by marriage, you just married the person because you really loved them and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them.

I'm in the, if straights can do it, homosexuals should be able to camp. But I wish the state would get out of the marriage license business.

[speciallyblend]

Get marriage out of the government, yes....

But in the mean time, provide it equally.

+1

[speciallyblend]

The part that sucks is convincing everyone that the state should be out of marriage because "it's always been that way." Sometimes I want to slam my head down on the desk...these people don't get it. I wonder if the state issuing marriage licenses affects the divorce rate. I mean, if there were no benefits from the state to be given by marriage, you just married the person because you really loved them and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them.

I'm in the, if straights can do it, homosexuals should be able to camp. But I wish the state would get out of the marriage license business.

the majority of right-wingers in the gop love more government. they do not walk the walk or talk the talk!!

[Petar]

I do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, God will judge this country for allowing these things to happen and abandoning our Christian heritage. He already is judging Europe for her sins, how long can He rest until He judges us?

We are as Israel was in the days of the prophets. Despite all the reminders of our Christian heritage that are chiseled on the very halls of power in this country, we ignore them at our own peril and do not teach our children what they mean. Can we violate the greatest command and expect the rest of the Law to protect us from the hordes of blasphemers more emboldened than ever by the acceptance of their behavior as normal?



Also see:

http://www.massresistance.org/

The irony here is that this shit is totally gay.

[Baptist]

This is a Constitutionally sound decision, in line with the 14th Amendment.


I disagree. The Bill of Rights applies to the feds not the states. Just because some judges, 50 years after the fact, decided that they were going to selectively make SOME rights contained in the BoR apply to the states, does not mean that it is in line with the 14th Amendment. It means that activist judges pervert the Constitution to achieve a desired agenda. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, therefore California is allowed to ban gay marriage.

I want government out of marriage period. But Constitutionally speaking, the court was wrong with this ruling.

[Baptist]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

This argument would make sense if a state judge ruled. However, it was in federal court. So yes, an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.

[American Nationalist]

I disagree. The Bill of Rights applies to the feds not the states. Just because some judges, 50 years after the fact, decided that they were going to selectively make SOME rights contained in the BoR apply to the states, does not mean that it is in line with the 14th Amendment. It means that activist judges pervert the Constitution to achieve a desired agenda. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, therefore California is allowed to ban gay marriage.

I want government out of marriage period. But Constitutionally speaking, the court was wrong with this ruling.

You may disagree, but you are uninformed and bigoted. The 14th Amendment is very clear, it clearly applies to state law, in section 1, it says, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You are ignoring the Constitution to promote your throwback religious agenda.

[Baptist]

You may disagree, but you are uninformed and bigoted. The 14th Amendment is very clear, it clearly applies to state law, in section 1, it says, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You are ignoring the Constitution to promote your throwback religious agenda.

No need for name calling and ad hominem attacks. I said I wanted the government out of marriage period so cool your emotions and read my text more carefully. If I am uniformed and bigoted, then so is Tom Woods. Listen to his speech on the 14th Amendment.

Question, American Nationalist. If the 14th Amendment was meant to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states, then why didn't any of the drafters of the 14th Amendment say so? Also, if the 14th Amendment was supposed to make the BoR apply to the states, why did courts wait 50 years to rule that way? Lastly, if the 14th Amendment makes the BoR apply to the states, they why has the court over the past 90 years ruled that only some of the BoR applies to the states? Shouldn't all of the BoR apply to the states then?

Uninformed and ignoring the Constitution? Try not to name call in your next post. And please answer my questions.

[edit] BTW, you are the one with a throwback agenda. No need to take us back to Ancient Greece and Roman bath houses. Come on man!! We've progressed beyond that! Progressive arguments don't work. We are not dealing with anything that has not been promoted and banned a dozen times already over the past 5,000 years.

[American Nationalist]

No need for name calling and ad hominem attacks. I said I wanted the government out of marriage period so cool your emotions and read my text more carefully. If I am uniformed and bigoted, then so is Tom Woods. Listen to his speech on the 14th Amendment.

Question, American Nationalist. If the 14th Amendment was meant to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states, then why didn't any of the drafters of the 14th Amendment say so? Also, if the 14th Amendment was supposed to make the BoR apply to the states, why did courts wait 50 years to rule that way? Lastly, if the 14th Amendment makes the BoR apply to the states, they why has the court over the past 90 years ruled that only some of the BoR applies to the states? Shouldn't all of the BoR apply to the states then?

Uninformed and ignoring the Constitution? Try not to name call in your next post. And please answer my questions.

[edit] BTW, you are the one with a throwback agenda. No need to take us back to Ancient Greece and Roman bath houses. Come on man!! We've progressed beyond that! Progressive arguments don't work. We are not dealing with anything that has not been promoted and banned a dozen times already over the past 5,000 years.
I insulted you, but I didn't engage in an ad hominem attack, I didn't attack the validity of your premise through my insults. I attacked the validity of your premise by citing the 14th Amendment. I certainly see a need for insults, considering we are talking about you imposing your religious views through the state apparatus and denying people equal protection under the law.

If Tom Woods doesn't think the 14th Amendment applies to the states, than he is stupid and bigoted. He is stupid, at least in this case, because I bet he has read it, and it is very clear in it's application to state law as well as Federal law. He is also bigoted in that he supports applying his personal prejudices through the state apparatus.

The Founders didn't have a 14th Amendment. But the writers of the 14th Amendment did make it clear that it applied to the states. All states must provide equal protection under the law.

And the Founders were inspired by the Roman Republic and the Athenian Government model. But bathhouses have nothing to do with equal protection under the law, and bathouses were used by ***** and heteros, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

[MichelleHeart]

Liberty through centralization. Hmm. Where have I heard this before?

...

Oh wait!


http://www.chicotown.com/pics/lincoln-tyrant.jpg

[Baptist]

I insulted you, but I didn't engage in an ad hominem attack, I didn't attack the validity of your premise through my insults. I attacked the validity of your premise by citing the 14th Amendment. I certainly see a need for insults, considering we are talking about you imposing your religious views through the state apparatus and denying people equal protection under the law.

If Tom Woods doesn't think the 14th Amendment applies to the states, than he is stupid and bigoted. He is stupid, at least in this case, because I bet he has read it, and it is very clear in it's application to state law as well as Federal law. He is also bigoted in that he supports applying his personal prejudices through the state apparatus.

The Founders didn't have a 14th Amendment. But the writers of the 14th Amendment did make it clear that it applied to the states. All states must provide equal protection under the law.

And the Founders were inspired by the Roman Republic and the Athenian Government model. But bathhouses have nothing to do with equal protection under the law, and bathouses were used by ***** and heteros, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

I didn't say the Founders had a 14th Amendment. I asked why the drafters of the 14th Amendment didn't say that the 14th makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The Founders of our Constitution didn't just leave us a Constitution with no opinions on it. We have the Federalist Papers and many writings explaining their thoughts on what the Constitution means. Surely the drafters of the 14th Amendment debated or discussed the language of the amendment. There has to be some writing showing that the drafters of the 14th wanted the BoR to apply to the states. So I am asking you to point me to these writings.

Jefferson said that you have to look to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. If every generation gets to decide what it means, then the Constitution might as well be a blank piece of paper. Similarly, you also have to look at the intent of the drafters of each Amendment. What did the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment put it in the Constitution for? I argue that they did not mean the 14th to make the BoR apply to the states. If they did, show me where they stated this.

[RokiLothbard]

Calling somebody a bigot , just because they disagree with you about the 14th ammendment and the incorporation doctrine, is in fact an ad hominem. If you disagree you are just a dumbass. Sorry couldn't help myself.

Actually I find the whole question to be one of hardest, as a layman reading the constitution. I probably will look up Thomas Woods on the subject some time.

[07041826]

I disagree. The Bill of Rights applies to the feds not the states. Just because......



If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then couldn't the states just nullify all of my natural rights at the state level, thus rendering the Bill of Rights useless? I do see that the 1st Amendment specifies Congress shall make no law, but the others are less specific.

[Reason]

i do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, god will judge this country


lmao...

[low preference guy]

i do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, god will judge this country

poor brainwashed kid.

[South Park Fan]

Lol @ American Nationalist calling anybody a bigot.

[nate895]

poor brainwashed kid.

Who, exactly, did the brainwashing? I came to these beliefs on my own without being "brainwashed." I am not a member of a cult group that controls the flow of information, nor was I raised in the church of which I am a member. The fact is you are the one is brainwashed by the modern secular academic elite. There are answers to every question that has been raised. You simply refuse to see them. It is not that our little debate we are having here has not happened in the past, I don't know, 6,000 years, and the skeptics have raised the same questions over, and over, and over again, and the Christians have answered them over, and over, and over again. Yet we are sitting here after 2,000 years of Church History, and the skeptic pretends he is some sort of genius who has just come up with a brand new reason why we should hate Christianity and everything the Bible stands for.

Guess what? We've already debated homosexuality back in Roman times. The Church prevailed that time. The Church will prevail again, like it has time and again in history. It may take a few decades or centuries to once again prevail this time, but it will happen, and the secular philosophies of today, as the Greek philosophies of the past, will be consigned to the dust heap of history.

[RM918]

I really don't see the reason for outrage. If people want to be gay and everyone is able to properly consent, let them be gay. Government should get out of marriage period, but in the mean time why shouldn't gay couples get the same benefits? So long as they're not forcing anyone else to be gay, why should anyone care what they do?

[Southron]

This argument would make sense if a state judge ruled. However, it was in federal court. So yes, an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.

What enumerated power is the state violating?

Seems to me this issue would fall to the states.

Judges can't just strike down parts of a constitution just because they feel like it.

[nobody's_hero]

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then couldn't the states just nullify all of my natural rights at the state level, thus rendering the Bill of Rights useless? I do see that the 1st Amendment specifies Congress shall make no law, but the others are less specific.

They could. Which is why it is up to the people of the states to keep checks on the states, just as it is up to the states to keep checks on the feds. Fortunately, states have Constitutions, too. Many are modeled after the U.S. Constitution, and some are better/worse.

Giving federal judges the power to strike out parts of state constitutions just doesn't sit well with me. I realize that this is indeed a good victory for homosexuals, just as D.C./Chicago rulings were for gun owners, and Arizona's . . . —well, we'll have to wait and see what happens there, but the Feds are already getting involved.

I'm just cautious, that's all I'm saying. I realize it was a good outcome, but the method used to obtain it is . . .





http://www.chicotown.com/pics/lincoln-tyrant.jpg


Exactly, Michelle. This is what gives me cause for caution.

[bobbyw24]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

Congressman Ron Paul does not believe that the issue of gay marriage is a matter to be decided at the federal level. He has said that the effort of a federal official to change the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." He stated further, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." The issue of gay marriage is one to be decided at the state-level by the citizens of the state, as the people of California did when they passed Proposition 8. Ron Paul supported the Defense of Marriage Act to ensure that the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause continued to allow one state to refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages of another state.

Paul also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. Had this legislation passed, today's headlines might have been different.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=255902

[Baptist]

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then couldn't the states just nullify all of my natural rights at the state level, thus rendering the Bill of Rights useless? I do see that the 1st Amendment specifies Congress shall make no law, but the others are less specific.

See Nobody's_Hero post


They could. Which is why it is up to the people of the states to keep checks on the states, just as it is up to the states to keep checks on the feds. Fortunately, states have Constitutions, too. Many are modeled after the U.S. Constitution, and some are better/worse.

07041826, Everyone here on the RPF, including myself, will agree philosophically with you that all the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural and that NO level of government should infringe upon them. However, if the Constitution is what you hold as the highest authority, then yes legally states are allowed to infringe upon our natural rights. But as Hero pointed out, all states have Constitutions that include a Bill or Rights that almost mirror the federal BoR.



Giving federal judges the power to strike out parts of state constitutions just doesn't sit well with me. I realize that this is indeed a good victory for homosexuals, just as D.C./Chicago rulings were for gun owners, and Arizona's . . . —well, we'll have to wait and see what happens there, but the Feds are already getting involved.

Yeah, and I just remembered something to the guy who called me bigoted. If the citizens of California voted to allow gay marriage, and a federal judge interfered and said that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional, I would take the exact same position that I do now-- that it's not a federal matter and states can do what they want. My posts in this thread have nothing to do with gay and anti gay, but respecting the rule of law which is the Constitution.

[erowe1]

This is why we need to get more momentum behind Ron Paul's We the People Act.
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdr12D:@@@D&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

[erowe1]

This warms my Libertarian heart.

How is this ruling "Libertarian"?

[demolama]

Libertarians are for any source of freedom. They don't care if it comes from the states, the federal government, or the world government as long as they receive the freedoms they are entitled. This is where libertarians split with like minded individuals who also desire the same results but want it done in a way that does not have unintended consequences.

The unintended consequence for this ruling is the destruction of yet another barrier of federalism. Soon states will have no constitutions, no bill of rights, no government what-so-ever, just 50 administrative bodies to enforce national blanket laws for people in rural Maine to urban California.

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible. You have a better chance of voting a horrible authoritarian out of state government than you would DC. DC some 3000 miles away has no clue what is good for the farmers in Idaho. Why should I be willing to give the federal government more power to have an effect on the lives of those people in Idaho?

Whats next... should we go after a sovereign country to enforce similar equality? Where does it end? Tyranny always rides on the back of a horse named equality in order to consolidate power.

[Ricky201]

Meh...

Can we just buy a huge shredder and get rid of the marriage certificates already?

[LibertyVox]

Libertarians are for any source of freedom. They don't care if it comes from the states, the federal government, or the world government as long as they receive the freedoms they are entitled. This is where libertarians split with like minded individuals who also desire the same results but want it done in a way that does not have unintended consequences.

The unintended consequence for this ruling is the destruction of yet another barrier of federalism. Soon states will have no constitutions, no bill of rights, no government what-so-ever, just 50 administrative bodies to enforce national blanket laws for people in rural Maine to urban California.

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible. You have a better chance of voting a horrible authoritarian out of state government than you would DC. DC some 3000 miles away has no clue what is good for the farmers in Idaho. Why should I be willing to give the federal government more power to have an effect on the lives of those people in Idaho?

Whats next... should we go after a sovereign country to enforce similar equality? Where does it end? Tyranny always rides on the back of a horse named equality in order to consolidate power.

I don't think Libertarians have the same opinion about the ruling, most will have their opinion based on their understanding of the liberal principles enshrined in the constitution.

Now, in general I do agree with you. I agree that local polities should have more control over what they want to do and the reason being this:


If the citizens of California voted to allow gay marriage, and a federal judge interfered and said that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional, I would take the exact same position that I do now-- that it's not a federal matter and states can do what they want. My posts in this thread have nothing to do with gay and anti gay, but respecting the rule of law which is the Constitution.

And certainly this is not the first time a Federal Judge has ruled over a State's High court decision.
My problem is that the invoking of State's rights overwhelmingly comes from those folks who love big government, love the ironclad FedGov, love spending, love mass murders and wars (present company at RPF excepted) and only when they have no other way they use the facade of state rights, the-evils-of-trampling-fedgov.

My personal prefernce would be the Federal Judge making a ruling if a case is petitioned in the Fed supreme court based on the powers enumerated to the fedgov in the constitution, but not enforcing the federal writ.

As an example, some states permit its residents to be licensed growers of marijuana, but this is against the federal law. Most of the times nothing happens but at times the federal law is enforced by federal agencies and the licensed marijuana grower has his business rolled up.

I recognize there are many advantages of living in a decentralized system. The more the better. It gives breathing room for the country's survival since there is much more wiggle room for social and political adjustments. If one place fails in something, the others can avoid the same mistake. Or they can replicate a success.

It also avoids secessionist humdrum. Some laws or policies in some places maybe seen as backward and may be discriminatory, but people can then move into another state where the society is more tolerant and enlightened. And I ave always believed in the social and intellectual fecundity in flux. Including human flux.

But even so: I believe that such policies should be then further decentralized not only to states but to the city level. And I agree with this quote of yours:


Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible.

...with a cautionary caveat that the converse can be EQUALLY true. Loss of liberty can occur easily when liberty is applied selectively. Thus my advocacy for things to be decided at at least District of not city levels. There would be much less problem for those who would wanna move (or be forced to move) from one city to another than from one state to another.

But I do believe the Federal govt. is the moral face of a republic. I feel we are fortunate that our constitution is very liberal and moral for the most part. So I still applaud the over-turning of the decision by the Federal Supreme Court. I just wouldn't want it to be enforced at gun point.

[TonySutton]

After reading the the decision, I am curious how many people here actually read the decision.

The proponents of Prop 8 did a rather shabby job of defending their position, imo.

[nobody's_hero]

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible. You have a better chance of voting a horrible authoritarian out of state government than you would DC. DC some 3000 miles away has no clue what is good for the farmers in Idaho. Why should I be willing to give the federal government more power to have an effect on the lives of those people in Idaho?


Expanding, if I may:

Generally, bottom-up, grassroots solutions do have a greater chance of exacting REAL changes in society. I don't know that they're always easier, per-se (as it is very easy to get 51% in the U.S. Congress and since Thor's Hammer, I mean, Speaker Pelosi's Gavel, is very powerful, I have no doubts that she can very easily "give" the people liberty while simultaneously getting whatever else she wants to help herself to in the same process).

Government generally reflects society, although it adapts retardedly and often waaay after the people have sent it the memo. What I'm saying is: If you are a gay person living in California, your problem is that 70% of the people there don't think you have the right to marry, not that the State of California government says you can't get married. The government is only doing what the people have commissioned it to do. You have to get the people to change their orders.

Education is the key. Just as it is with us in the Ron Paul minority versus the world (it sometimes feels like), there is much educating to do. Otherwise, if by say, some fluke (rather than principled-voter-participation, comprised of people will a full-on understanding of economic and individual liberties, combined with a dedication to be eternally vigilant in the defense of liberty, peace, and prosperity[—oh! how nice it would be to have such a breed of voters]) Ron Paul had won the 2008 election, then the people's fundamental understanding of freedom would not be present in the equation, only their votes. The consequence is that all that would be accomplished during a Ron Paul administration would be undone by some idiot successor, as the voter's overwhelming dedication and understanding of liberty would not be there, obviously, having let some idiot take Ron Paul's place.

Have we not seen this occur with the Federal Court system? How many times throughout the course of history have rulings upon rulings been overturned, returned, appealed, denied, retried, flip-flopped, reversed, turned inside-out, corkscrewed . . . (BOP-IT!!!! :p)? As soon as another team gets their turn at the frankenstein machine of power, the judge who ruled in this case will be gone, someone new will reverse him, and we'll be right back to square one.

In this regard, this ruling is no more worth celebrating than Chicago/D.C. gun rulings. I say, give it five years. Someone will fart and change the direction of the political winds, and we'll probably be right back where we started. We aren't making any headway, we're just getting fool-lucky every now and then. The philosophy of liberty just isn't there, and it won't be unless we take to the airwaves with the message.

Instead, keep it local, and build outward (not upward). Local communities do not change nearly as swiftly in their principles as the folks from Washington, D.C. (if they ever possess any "principles" to start with). If local communities do change their values, it is usually due to gradual acceptance of new principles that they themselves wish to seek, and not that which is forced upon them, regardless of morality/immorality of the issue at hand.

[nate895]

After reading the the decision, I am curious how many people here actually read the decision.

The proponents of Prop 8 did a rather shabby job of defending their position, imo.

I would be in general agreement with that statement. There are a lot of non-legal talking points brought up by both sides of the case. Much of the ruling is more fit for the findings of a legislative committee than a judge. It is the job of judges to interpret the laws on the books, and when contradictions occur between two aspects of the law, to determine which law is superior to the other.

[BlackTerrel]

this is good for liberty.

Because 1 gay judge can overturn the votes of an entire state of 30 million people. I honestly couldn't care much about this law - in the grand scheme of things it's irrelevant to my life.

But the fact that this judge has basically made voting irrelevant is very very troubling. Despite the fact that all the pro-gay crowd on RPF is celebrating.