Prop 8 overturned

ResearchMonkey said:
So much for Democracy and states rights, voting is a 100% waste of time.
  • Prop 187 set aside.
  • SB1070 set aside.
  • Prop 8 set aside.
  • We shall soon see Prop C set aside.
There is only way to enforce the US Constitution and the left is going to bring it.
Click to expand...

The right to vote is under attack. Now we have judicial fiat.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
national health care is also unconstitutional, but you ignore that.

the rite of marriage in not a right. It just more forced inclusion of values most of think is sick and twisted. Soon pedo/nambla and 3-way marriages and unions with farm animals.

Enjoy your civil war.
Click to expand...

Genealogy will get very interesting from this point. Who is the mother? Who is the father? Who begat whom? How do you chart children adopted by two men or two women?
 
spike said:
We are a republic. Regardless though, you can't just have a majority passing arbitrary restrictions on the minority.

If the majority said "We don't like old people, let's make it illegal for anyone over 60 to buy land". That would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Old is not a choice. Being Gay is.

Gays are trying to get rights based upon a choice, not an unchangeable aspect of their being like skin color, sex, or race.
 
spike said:
Who the fuck did he take rights away from. He kept one set of citizens from limiting what other citizens can do.

Yay for freedom!
Click to expand...

He took the right to vote from the entirety of the state's electors to the advantage of a minority of complainers.
 
Propositions C, Eight and 187 & AZ bill 1070 all negated

voting is a 100% waste of time
 
jimpeel said:
The law is not "overturned". It is going to be appealed. It is merely on hold until then.
Click to expand...

No, looks like it's overturned. There may or may not be an appeal but it's overturned for now. Unconstitutional.

The right to vote is under attack. Now we have judicial fiat.
Click to expand...

No, what they did was overturn the ability of a majority to arbitrarily take freedoms away from minorities.

Genealogy will get very interesting from this point. Who is the mother? Who is the father? Who begat whom? How do you chart children adopted by two men or two women?
Click to expand...

Who fucking cares? The same way you chart adopted children.

Old is not a choice. Being Gay is.

Gays are trying to get rights based upon a choice, not an unchangeable aspect of their being like skin color, sex, or race.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, it's not a choice. I can't just choose to be attracted to men because I'm just not.

Even if it was it doesn't fucking matter. It'd be like the majority saying fat people can't marry. Ridiculous.

He took the right to vote from the entirety of the state's electors to the advantage of a minority of complainers.
Click to expand...

No, he protected a minority from people trying to take away their freedom.

Freedom wins. Fuck yeah.
 
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8?

The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. ...

The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children...

This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children.

Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples?
Click to expand...

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

:hairbang:

Yay for freedom!
 
jimpeel said:
Genealogy will get very interesting from this point. Who is the mother? Who is the father? Who begat whom? How do you chart children adopted by two men or two women?
Click to expand...

Geneology will not change whatsoever from how it's been done. You chart adopted kids the same way as you did before. Go ahead and ask someone who's been adopted where they fit in their family tree - the answer? Right below their parents.

Divorce, step-parentage and 2nd marriages have changed the family geneology more than same-sex marriage ever will.
 
jimpeel said:
Old is not a choice. Being Gay is.

Gays are trying to get rights based upon a choice, not an unchangeable aspect of their being like skin color, sex, or race.
Click to expand...

Sexuality is not a choice, jim. It's biological and unchangeable.
 
Gotholic said:
Homosexuality is not a choice, however, just because something is not chosen does not mean it is inborn.
Click to expand...

depends. homosexual behavior can certainly be chosen. and it's certainly fun to watch when it's two girls. *giggity.*
 
ResearchMonkey said:
national health care is also unconstitutional, but you ignore that.

the rite of marriage in not a right. It just more forced inclusion of values most of think is sick and twisted. Soon pedo/nambla and 3-way marriages and unions with farm animals.

Enjoy your civil war.
Click to expand...
Not to mention race mixin'!
Keep them dirty nigra boys away from the white women!
 
Gotholic said:
Homosexuality is not a choice, however, just because something is not chosen does not mean it is inborn.
Click to expand...

Which leaves what, exactly?

Environmental or man-made (biochemical)?

Please keep in mind that homosexuality has been around for a very long time, so current environmental factors should be discounted immediately.

The first recorded evidence of homosexuality is found in Mesopotamia, circa 3000 B.C. where artifacts have been discovered depicting same sex couples. Alexander the Great is also recorded as having had a same sex relationship.
 
spike said:
this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It's a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.
Click to expand...

The law suit was brought on by a republican group. The case was argued and won by a Republican lawyer, Ted Olsen.

So can you remind me what the democrats have done for the "equal rights' of homosexuals? (or blacks?)

Oh yeah, kept them enslaved to the democrats power elite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top