Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[DaWoad]

Honestly the plaintiffs coulda showed up and slept, without offering any arguements. Say what you want about people crying activists judges, When the judge trying the case is Openly Gay?

Not saying that he isnt a qualified judge, but he should not have been allowed to over see this case based on grounds that his personal views would bias his decision. If they proponents appeal on this basis, they will win the appeal, and the law gets put back in place.

Oh, good. Being gay is a "personal view" now.

Oh, good. You're a prodigy of David Copperfield.


He's Gay. He's passing ruling on whether a ban on Gay Marriage is Constitutional. He's Judging on something that directly affects him. It is impossible for him to remain Objective. It's like letting a guy on Death Row decide if Capital Punishment is Constituional or not.

Riiiiight. Because, of course, lal gay people are of a hive-mind mentality that gay marraige is an absolute moral imperative, and because, of course, a straight judge wouldn't have their own views on the legality of gay marraige. Unless you cna find any evidence - anywhere credible, please - that Judge Walker has expressed opinions in the past that gay marraige is a moral imperative, please stfu about shit you know nothing about.

Wait, why are straights deciding what gays can and cannot do at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to let gays decide if they can get married or not?

No. Let's let welfare recipients decide how much welfare they get while we are at it.

How is that in anyway related to a group of people deciding if they get to have a certain human right or not?

That makes absolutely no sense dude. Of course they will vote yes for themselves, people grab as much power as they can.

So giving them selves the right to get married equals a powergrab?

What? That makes no sense

Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Actually, all we want is that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. You have that. Why can't I?

I can't marry another man and I'm fine with that

But I want to marry another woman and you're telling me I can't, with no good reason other than "because." Just as you don't want to be told you have to buy health insurance, I don't want to be told I can't marry the person I love and have lived with for longer, I daresay, than you've been drawing breath.

and yet, despite this impassioned argument I am still required to purchase health insurance against my will
I'll make a deal with you, we start a revolution, and when we win, I make it a crime for the government to force you to purchase things against your will, and you can it a crime for the government to inhibit your ability to marry whomever you choose

You realized you just flip flopped your opinion right?

[Zephie]

Honestly the plaintiffs coulda showed up and slept, without offering any arguements. Say what you want about people crying activists judges, When the judge trying the case is Openly Gay?

Not saying that he isnt a qualified judge, but he should not have been allowed to over see this case based on grounds that his personal views would bias his decision. If they proponents appeal on this basis, they will win the appeal, and the law gets put back in place.

Oh, good. Being gay is a "personal view" now.

Oh, good. You're a prodigy of David Copperfield.


He's Gay. He's passing ruling on whether a ban on Gay Marriage is Constitutional. He's Judging on something that directly affects him. It is impossible for him to remain Objective. It's like letting a guy on Death Row decide if Capital Punishment is Constituional or not.

Riiiiight. Because, of course, lal gay people are of a hive-mind mentality that gay marraige is an absolute moral imperative, and because, of course, a straight judge wouldn't have their own views on the legality of gay marraige. Unless you cna find any evidence - anywhere credible, please - that Judge Walker has expressed opinions in the past that gay marraige is a moral imperative, please stfu about shit you know nothing about.

Wait, why are straights deciding what gays can and cannot do at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to let gays decide if they can get married or not?

No. Let's let welfare recipients decide how much welfare they get while we are at it.

How is that in anyway related to a group of people deciding if they get to have a certain human right or not?

That makes absolutely no sense dude. Of course they will vote yes for themselves, people grab as much power as they can.

So giving them selves the right to get married equals a powergrab?

What? That makes no sense

Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Actually, all we want is that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. You have that. Why can't I?

I can't marry another man and I'm fine with that

But I want to marry another woman and you're telling me I can't, with no good reason other than "because." Just as you don't want to be told you have to buy health insurance, I don't want to be told I can't marry the person I love and have lived with for longer, I daresay, than you've been drawing breath.

and yet, despite this impassioned argument I am still required to purchase health insurance against my will
I'll make a deal with you, we start a revolution, and when we win, I make it a crime for the government to force you to purchase things against your will, and you can it a crime for the government to inhibit your ability to marry whomever you choose

Fine, except Zephie rants against having to buy insurance and he rants against me being able to marry the person I love, which is why I was replying to him and not you.

So you are for the freedom of homosexuals to marry, but not for the freedom of everyone to not purchase a product? How caring.

[Grave_n_idle]

Christian: Goes against God's word.
Atheist: Goes against Nature.

I am Christian.

Actually, most athesits have nothing agaisnt homosexuality, or same-sex marriages at all.

you sure about that?

I'm an Atheist, and most of me has nothing against homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

You're not most atheists, to be fair...

Wait did I read the worng notes at the last Atheist Meeting? I thought we were supposed to love the gays? I keep losing the memos...

the meeting was a MESS.

gay love was on the ballot but it devolved into a fight over whether MOST of an atheist should carry the whole vote or if gni's left eye could cast one on it own and if so how many votes did each atheist get......

we didnt get out of there until after midnight with nothing resolved but that gni's left eye is an ass.

We'd get more done if we could agree with each other on anything else besides just the God issue.

i know! its as if we have nothing else in common.

Didn't we all agree that bacon is delicious? Oh, and that those green checked drapes really did not match the burnt amber throw rugs?

[Grave_n_idle]

So you are for the freedom of homosexuals to marry, but not for the freedom of everyone to not purchase a product? How caring.

It's hard to really justify suggesting someone else is 'uncaring' when their position is that people should be able to marry whoever they love - and you're complaining about having to pay for services.

[DaWoad]

Honestly the plaintiffs coulda showed up and slept, without offering any arguements. Say what you want about people crying activists judges, When the judge trying the case is Openly Gay?

Not saying that he isnt a qualified judge, but he should not have been allowed to over see this case based on grounds that his personal views would bias his decision. If they proponents appeal on this basis, they will win the appeal, and the law gets put back in place.

Oh, good. Being gay is a "personal view" now.

Oh, good. You're a prodigy of David Copperfield.


He's Gay. He's passing ruling on whether a ban on Gay Marriage is Constitutional. He's Judging on something that directly affects him. It is impossible for him to remain Objective. It's like letting a guy on Death Row decide if Capital Punishment is Constituional or not.

Riiiiight. Because, of course, lal gay people are of a hive-mind mentality that gay marraige is an absolute moral imperative, and because, of course, a straight judge wouldn't have their own views on the legality of gay marraige. Unless you cna find any evidence - anywhere credible, please - that Judge Walker has expressed opinions in the past that gay marraige is a moral imperative, please stfu about shit you know nothing about.

Wait, why are straights deciding what gays can and cannot do at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to let gays decide if they can get married or not?

No. Let's let welfare recipients decide how much welfare they get while we are at it.

How is that in anyway related to a group of people deciding if they get to have a certain human right or not?

That makes absolutely no sense dude. Of course they will vote yes for themselves, people grab as much power as they can.

So giving them selves the right to get married equals a powergrab?

What? That makes no sense

Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Actually, all we want is that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. You have that. Why can't I?

I can't marry another man and I'm fine with that

But I want to marry another woman and you're telling me I can't, with no good reason other than "because." Just as you don't want to be told you have to buy health insurance, I don't want to be told I can't marry the person I love and have lived with for longer, I daresay, than you've been drawing breath.

and yet, despite this impassioned argument I am still required to purchase health insurance against my will
I'll make a deal with you, we start a revolution, and when we win, I make it a crime for the government to force you to purchase things against your will, and you can it a crime for the government to inhibit your ability to marry whomever you choose

Fine, except Zephie rants against having to buy insurance and he rants against me being able to marry the person I love, which is why I was replying to him and not you.

So you are for the freedom of homosexuals to marry, but not for the freedom of everyone to not purchase a product? How caring.

no, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Farn was saying that they're both wrong and was pointing out your hypocrisy.

[SaintB]

So you are for the freedom of homosexuals to marry, but not for the freedom of everyone to not purchase a product? How caring.

Actually as I recall they are against the second one too but this is not the argument at hand.

[The Horror Channel]

Honestly the plaintiffs coulda showed up and slept, without offering any arguements. Say what you want about people crying activists judges, When the judge trying the case is Openly Gay?

Not saying that he isnt a qualified judge, but he should not have been allowed to over see this case based on grounds that his personal views would bias his decision. If they proponents appeal on this basis, they will win the appeal, and the law gets put back in place.

Oh, good. Being gay is a "personal view" now.

Oh, good. You're a prodigy of David Copperfield.


He's Gay. He's passing ruling on whether a ban on Gay Marriage is Constitutional. He's Judging on something that directly affects him. It is impossible for him to remain Objective. It's like letting a guy on Death Row decide if Capital Punishment is Constituional or not.

Riiiiight. Because, of course, lal gay people are of a hive-mind mentality that gay marraige is an absolute moral imperative, and because, of course, a straight judge wouldn't have their own views on the legality of gay marraige. Unless you cna find any evidence - anywhere credible, please - that Judge Walker has expressed opinions in the past that gay marraige is a moral imperative, please stfu about shit you know nothing about.

Wait, why are straights deciding what gays can and cannot do at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to let gays decide if they can get married or not?

No. Let's let welfare recipients decide how much welfare they get while we are at it.

How is that in anyway related to a group of people deciding if they get to have a certain human right or not?

That makes absolutely no sense dude. Of course they will vote yes for themselves, people grab as much power as they can.

So giving them selves the right to get married equals a powergrab?

What? That makes no sense

Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Actually, all we want is that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. You have that. Why can't I?

I can't marry another man and I'm fine with that

But I want to marry another woman and you're telling me I can't, with no good reason other than "because." Just as you don't want to be told you have to buy health insurance, I don't want to be told I can't marry the person I love and have lived with for longer, I daresay, than you've been drawing breath.

and yet, despite this impassioned argument I am still required to purchase health insurance against my will
I'll make a deal with you, we start a revolution, and when we win, I make it a crime for the government to force you to purchase things against your will, and you can it a crime for the government to inhibit your ability to marry whomever you choose

Fine, except Zephie rants against having to buy insurance and he rants against me being able to marry the person I love, which is why I was replying to him and not you.

So you are for the freedom of homosexuals to marry, but not for the freedom of everyone to not purchase a product? How caring.

no, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Farn was saying that they're both wrong and was pointing out your hypocrisy.

It's not hard to point out hypocrisy when that's all that's ever there.

[Lelouche]

You realized you just flip flopped your opinion right?

I don't recognize anything, as I am retarded

basically the support for the health insurance mandate is based on the assumption that the state is allowed to force or prohibit things for the good of *insert reason here*

This is also the basis for the limiting of the legal definition of marriage

Frankly I think both positions are equally absurd

but also I find "Legal" marriage to be absurd, but nobody ever wants to discuss that...nah they would have to lose the benefits of marriage if they did that.

In the end, this argument isn't about love, if it was, they could just live together and not care who knew, as it wouldn't matter anyways
This argument is about greed, pure and simple
Follow the money trail

~deep throat

[Katganistan]

Our very foundation of law is based upon the assumption of natural rights. Truthfully it's the only system which makes sense; anything else is merely despotism in new clothes.

I don't believe in natural rights. Nature doesn't hand out rights. Man makes his own rights, and must be prepared to defend them against idiots from over the seas who want to quash them.

Aren't you in Japan commenting on the American court system?

[Shayrshaa]

WOO HOO!

I see several pages of debate going on here. It's easy to debate if you're hetero. To those of us who aren't, it's not debatable- we know we are what we are, we like what we like, we can't change it and we wouldn't want to, we're out and proud and if you don't like it too bad, we want our relationships to be equally recognized. Nobody's trying to make Christian marriage, loveless marriage, middle-aged marriage, or Republican marriage illegal, so live and let live. That's what freedom is all about, suckers!

America! Woo!

[Katganistan]

Our very foundation of law is based upon the assumption of natural rights. Truthfully it's the only system which makes sense; anything else is merely despotism in new clothes.

I don't believe in natural rights. Nature doesn't hand out rights. Man makes his own rights, and must be prepared to defend them against idiots from over the seas who want to quash them.

Aren't you overseas, commenting on the American court system?

[Grave_n_idle]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Even by your standards... well.

[Tekania]

Honestly the plaintiffs coulda showed up and slept, without offering any arguements. Say what you want about people crying activists judges, When the judge trying the case is Openly Gay?

Not saying that he isnt a qualified judge, but he should not have been allowed to over see this case based on grounds that his personal views would bias his decision. If they proponents appeal on this basis, they will win the appeal, and the law gets put back in place.

Oh, good. Being gay is a "personal view" now.

Oh, good. You're a prodigy of David Copperfield.


He's Gay. He's passing ruling on whether a ban on Gay Marriage is Constitutional. He's Judging on something that directly affects him. It is impossible for him to remain Objective. It's like letting a guy on Death Row decide if Capital Punishment is Constituional or not.

Riiiiight. Because, of course, lal gay people are of a hive-mind mentality that gay marraige is an absolute moral imperative, and because, of course, a straight judge wouldn't have their own views on the legality of gay marraige. Unless you cna find any evidence - anywhere credible, please - that Judge Walker has expressed opinions in the past that gay marraige is a moral imperative, please stfu about shit you know nothing about.

Wait, why are straights deciding what gays can and cannot do at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to let gays decide if they can get married or not?

No. Let's let welfare recipients decide how much welfare they get while we are at it.

How is that in anyway related to a group of people deciding if they get to have a certain human right or not?

That makes absolutely no sense dude. Of course they will vote yes for themselves, people grab as much power as they can.

So giving them selves the right to get married equals a powergrab?

What? That makes no sense

Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Actually, all we want is that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. You have that. Why can't I?

I can't marry another man and I'm fine with that

But I want to marry another woman and you're telling me I can't, with no good reason other than "because." Just as you don't want to be told you have to buy health insurance, I don't want to be told I can't marry the person I love and have lived with for longer, I daresay, than you've been drawing breath.

and yet, despite this impassioned argument I am still required to purchase health insurance against my will
I'll make a deal with you, we start a revolution, and when we win, I make it a crime for the government to force you to purchase things against your will, and you can it a crime for the government to inhibit your ability to marry whomever you choose

Fine, except Zephie rants against having to buy insurance and he rants against me being able to marry the person I love, which is why I was replying to him and not you.

So you are for the freedom of homosexuals to marry, but not for the freedom of everyone to not purchase a product? How caring.

That's not what she actually said, she used the two in equal comparison, so at least she may give ascent to aspects of her opposition's position.

[Katganistan]

Maybe that idiot judge will come to his senses and do the right thing by keeping prop-8 as law. The people voted, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, people cant vote away the Constitution.

The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".

It was designed with equality in mind.

Equality for normal people.

Once upon a time interracial marriage was considered abnormal.

As long as it is a MAN and WOMAN. And to the white landowners thing, that is completely irrelevant, racism isn't the same as normality.

Racism was the norm and enshrined in the laws of the land until the Supreme Court passed the 14th Amendment.
It only took 200 more years for us to get to this point.

[The Rich Port]

Wow... You guys know a thing or two about endurance. Guess I should, too... Goddamn malt liquor

[Shayrshaa]

btw, not sure how health insurance came into it, but (a) that bill has a lot of problems and that's one of them in my view (b) that was a Republican initiative to protect hospitals from paying for uninsured patients (not that we don't need health care reform in this country mind you, just that I agree that that bill has issues).

and to the Anti-Marriage folks: if marriage is abolished for everybody, frankly I'm cool with that, goes with my developing libertarian ethic. All I want is to be equal under the law, one way or the other. Again, easy to deny me this if you're hetero because it doesn't effect you, much harder to walk in my shoes for a moment and see that when the state allows heteros to marry but not homos, it effectively is casting a moral judgment on my sexuality, akin to illegal interracial marriage (note I said akin not equivalent, I'm not being trying to be all PETA here) or illegal Christian marriages.

[Aryan Republics of Ame]

I'm sorry, I don't remember faggots being enslaved for hundreds of years, being denied their right to vote, or having to use separate and inferior facilities.

Apology accepted.

It's not an apology, I'm just acknowledging what happened to them. I don't really care about them, but that's not how I would have ran things.

[Tekania]

but also I find "Legal" marriage to be absurd, but nobody ever wants to discuss that...nah they would have to lose the benefits of marriage if they did that.

In the end, this argument isn't about love, if it was, they could just live together and not care who knew, as it wouldn't matter anyways
This argument is about greed, pure and simple
Follow the money trail

~deep throat

Which would be all well and good if you would raise the whole issue outside of the SSM debate. The fact that whenever gay-marriage issues come up suddenly the "state getting out of marriage" becomes a convenient positional crutch simply leads me to dismiss those who raise it as spineless assholes... You're certainly acting in no way to change my opinion on that matter... The simple fact is, as long as the government is in the practice of regulating marriage, it must do so in accordance with the principles of due process and equality; which is the core of the legal issue on this matter.

[Lelouche]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Even by your standards... well.

Yes, and by "my standards" are you implying some kind of insult?

I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union, I don't even need a fictional god to recognize that union, only I and my partner need to recognize that union

State institutionalized marriage is about the benefits you receive for being legally recognized as such, and nothing else. It's greed (albeit a minor greed when compared to others)

Again, you can keep your marriage laws, I don't believe in a thousand years I could campaign and be successful to remove marriage as a state institution, so it'll have to be a theoretical alternative to the current system where by one petitions the government to recognize a status it really has no business recognizing in the first place

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm sorry, I don't remember faggots being enslaved for hundreds of years, being denied their right to vote, or having to use separate and inferior facilities.

Apology accepted.

It's not an apology, I'm just acknowledging what happened to them. I don't really care about them, but that's not how I would have ran things.

Ah, you meant the other "I'm sorry". I took you at face value and mistakenly assumed honesty. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

[Katganistan]

So...how many of you live in California anyways?

Personally, I'm glad Prop 8 is gone. That way, homos can pay moar taxes for this bankrupt state.

Now, why wouldn't Americans be interested in a constitutionality question, especially since the final decision could affect the country as a whole? The consequences will never be the same.

And sure, let them pay more taxes... and get the same benefits as straight couples.

[Grave_n_idle]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Yes...

...I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union,

I assume this is a roundabout way of answering the question?

You are content to simply love your partner... so anyone that wants to get married is greedy? I need to be sure I'm understanding.

[Aryan Republics of Ame]

It"s is horribly disgusting. It's morally atrocious. I'm not sure how it's not some sort of mental disorder. They won't just go off, live their lives in this new found freedom, and leave us alone. They'll make us see this shit with their parades and demonstrations ,and push for a bunch of rights and privileges and never go away, never be happy, so you have to shut em up and drive them away as best you can. Also, I've never met a homo worth a lick.

Why would you lick a homosexual, if you are so against them?

Oh, you know... you've been working up a real fury, yelling at all the 'fags', and acting masculine, and then there's that pool-boy all slick and glistening. Is that peanut oil, it couldn't hurt to.... NO, must hate. MUST HATE!!!!

Must it always come to this? I didn't make any jokes about AIDS or stinky peckers, so please leave this level of immaturity for your pals.

[Katganistan]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I agree. You should have the right to marry 15 women in my opinion.

...

You really do?

Sure, if you can support all the children. Why not?

[The Rich Port]

Yes, and by "my standards" are you implying some kind of insult?

I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union, I don't even need a fictional god to recognize that union, only I and my partner need to recognize that union

State institutionalized marriage is about the benefits you receive for being legally recognized as such, and nothing else. It's greed (albeit a minor greed when compared to others)

Again, you can keep your marriage laws, I don't believe in a thousand years I could campaign and be successful to remove marriage as a state institution, so it'll have to be a theoretical alternative to the current system where by one petitions the government to recognize a status it really has no business recognizing in the first place

... Are you GAY?

And if not, I don't think you can make this kind of a call...