Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Grave_n_idle]

Why is it bad in the first place? Gays don't want equal rights, they want special rights.

Getting married is now a special right?

[Zephie]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any f those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

If these liberals care so much about the constitution, where were they when the patriot act was passed?

[Dempublicents1]

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

Your argument is invalid.

Polygamy is a valid argument. Homosexual marriage is not how the judges in Loving vs Virginia, etc, would have thought of as marriage, so the whole equality precedent can't be used as an argument.

It doesn't really matter if it is how they would have thought of it. Unless discrimination based on sex or gender is somehow better than discrimination based on ethnicity, the same legal argument holds true.

If it is, then you have to apply the same rules to introduction of polygamy.

Polygamy introduces a whole new set of legal problems and thus would need a separate legal structure. Also, no polygamous union is allowed, regardless of the ethnicity, sex, or gender of the participants. As such, an equal protection argument doesn't really apply.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

The minority should have the same equal rights as the majority does. And the majority can only marry people from the opposite sex. Why should minorities have extra rights? They already have the equal rights that the majority have.

Also TurtleShroom makes a great deal of sense.

The majority only wants to marry people from the opposite sex.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any f those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

If these liberals care so much about the constitution, where were they when the patriot act was passed?

How is this relevant to the matter at hand? Oh, it isn't...

[Grave_n_idle]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any of those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

On the other hand, it's not expressly forbidden anywhere, either - and the 'equality' argument HAS been upheld before, with reference to marriage rights.

You're arguing against the Constitution AND precedent, on this one.

[Zephie]

an equal protection argument doesn't really apply.

How does it not? Homosexuals don't lose any rights for being gay.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What if we had Straight Pride Parades and marched THAT down the gayest district of your local metropolis? How would that feel?

I don't think many would care...

[Seculartopia]

Plus, homosexuality is a defiance of human nature. While it has existed since the beginning of mankind, it was never considered “natural” in mordern times until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. (-and don’t say Rome thought it was: just because Calligula or soem other nutjob emperor had gay reproduction doesn’t mean it’s right, he’s not even that good an example!)
If you want to challenge me, take an electrical plug. Now, take another electrical plug. Try to connect the two and turn the two on. It doesn’t work. Now, take that same plug and plug it into an electrical socket. Does it light up?

Homosexuality is in Nature. Maybe you didnt catch that the last time you spewed this in a Homosexuality-related thread.

Face it, most of the country doesn't like gays (that or they're apathetic). Some time soon, the Masses will take up their arms of bigotry and do SOMETHING to halt this madness.


This is NOT like the civil rights of the 1960s. Race can't be helped. I'm a white guy and he's a black guy. Or, I'm a man, she's a woman. That's just how we are, it's natural. Such things mean nothing in the workplace. However, if my workers start flirting with their own gender instead of being productive, I'd fire them! Or better... put a "NO GAYS NEED APPLY" sign on my busineess' door. I'd have plenty others to hire.

As I said before, it is a breach of constitutional rights, and it is not protected for Majorities to limit the rights of Minorities. It doesnt matter what people choose to be, it is an orientation that is in violation, by due court precedent, the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

This is a downer. ...-but... there's still more than thirty eight states who would sign on to a federal ban... -and until you can convince the entire Southeast that homosexuality is okay, I don't think they'll shut up about it. Start with the schools: indoctrinate "gay is okay" into the public school system. Maybe you'll get minions down South if you do.

Trying to educate people about the truth of people that are commonly sought after in intolerance is absolutely not the same as indoctrination. Rather, its indoctrination to convince someone that a group is wrong solely because the norms of a society say so, and not looking at the facts of nature and of science about those who are of that group.

[DaWoad]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any f those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

If these liberals care so much about the constitution, where were they when the patriot act was passed?

protesting/ in an uproar IIRC.

[Zephie]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any f those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

If these liberals care so much about the constitution, where were they when the patriot act was passed?

How is this relevant to the matter at hand? Oh, it isn't...

Of course it does. These liberals cite the constitution even when it is not relevant to pass their agenda, but when it's the other side, like FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE they claim it's not against the constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any f those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

If these liberals care so much about the constitution, where were they when the patriot act was passed?

protesting/ in an uproar IIRC.

Those were conservatives. The liberals are the ones who embrace government taking their freedoms for a false sense of protection.

[Desperate Measures]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

Uhm, they are two sides of a moral-issue coin. Neither side has logic or reason... it's... a moral argument. 'Tis quite laughable that you would pretend your side is any less petty and "feelings-associated" than the other. Frankly anyone who knows me knows that I believe both groups are stupid. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Then the gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted (with all the lovers they wanted) while the anti-gays covered their eyes. Get government the f*ck out of marriage. Now. THAT is the only logical argument. The right and the left are just retarded and I'm sick of hearing them, even worse I'm sick of hearing people like YOU (generally it is the left, not the right although it happens in both sides) claiming that the opposite side does not compare with you when it comes to "logic" or "wisdom". The reason this really makes me burn is because NEITHER of you have it! I feel better now...

I feel better hearing someone actually making sense.

What sucks is that, in order to get government out, you have to get government IN. Who else is going to outlaw Prop. 8? Chuck Norris?

Why is it bad in the first place? Gays don't want equal rights, they want special rights.

homosayswhat?

Damn... doesn't work as well in text form. Anyway - what exactly is special about a couple wanting the same rights as another couple?

[Greater Americania]

On the other hand, it's not expressly forbidden anywhere, either - and the 'equality' argument HAS been upheld before, with reference to marriage rights.

You're arguing against the Constitution AND precedent, on this one.

What the hell sort of logic is this? It doesn't say it isn't illegal in the Constitution, so outlawing it is unconstitutional? lolwut?

EDIT: As I've already clearly proven, the Constitution is not on your side, but furthermore social precedent has been to only allow straight couples to marry. If anything, precedent is on my side. I'll now humor myself as you attempt to change your argument, stating that precedent doesn't matter.

[Karsol]

an equal protection argument doesn't really apply.

How does it not? Homosexuals don't lose any rights for being gay.

Errr, the right to ADOPT, the right to marry the person they love in LIBERTY and HAPPINESS.

[Zephie]

an equal protection argument doesn't really apply.

How does it not? Homosexuals don't lose any rights for being gay.

Errr, the right to ADOPT, the right to marry the person they love in LIBERTY and HAPPINESS.

Adoption is a right? And there's no right in the constitution to "marry the person they love"

[DogDoo 7]

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 if we just legalize weed we'll be absolutely swimming in dough, until the legislature decides to spend it all on Goldline or some ponzi scheme.

[Gahaldu]

DRAT.


I was strongly disappointed in this ruling, but I agree that it was bound to happen. The queers backed up behind the minority shield and now cry discrimination when people try to protect true marriage.
Instead of facing their disease and taking steps or therapy to overcome it, they “embrace” it and march their flaw down our streets and make out in public JUST to tick the religious minority off. Until 1975, homosexuality WAS a disease and there were even ways in development to help treat it.

How is homosexuality a disease? What harm does it cause?

What if we had Straight Pride Parades and marched THAT down the gayest district of your local metropolis? How would that feel?

No one's stopping you.

Even if you’re not religious, the implications are obvious. Marriage is a (holy) social contract binding a male and a female for economic, inheritance, sexual/procreation, and of course, relegious reasons. Take the religion out, and you still have one man and one woman filing joint taxes, having kids, and sharing a bed.

The U.S. is a secular naiton. Religion should have no place in law.

Plus, homosexuality is a defiance of human nature. While it has existed since the beginning of mankind, it was never considered “natural” in mordern times until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. (-and don’t say Rome thought it was: just because Calligula or soem other nutjob emperor had gay reproduction doesn’t mean it’s right, he’s not even that good an example!)
If you want to challenge me, take an electrical plug. Now, take another electrical plug. Try to connect the two and turn the two on. It doesn’t work. Now, take that same plug and plug it into an electrical socket. Does it light up?

Animals can be homosexual as well.

Face it, most of the country doesn't like gays (that or they're apathetic). Some time soon, the Masses will take up their arms of bigotry and do SOMETHING to halt this madness.

Madness? Gays simply want the same rights as heterosexuals and we need a revolt? I feel that gays need to revolt, if anything.

This is NOT like the civil rights of the 1960s. Race can't be helped. I'm a white guy and he's a black guy. Or, I'm a man, she's a woman. That's just how we are, it's natural. Such things mean nothing in the workplace. However, if my workers start flirting with their own gender instead of being productive, I'd fire them! Or better... put a "NO GAYS NEED APPLY" sign on my busineess' door. I'd have plenty others to hire.

Can you help being straight?

(Also, how is a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? Didn't the PEOPLE want a ban on gay marriage? Did most of California not express their views by their right to vote? What gives a tiny minority of people the right to disallow everyone else from protecting marriage?)

Again, there was a time when people would vote to outlaw interracial marriage. And anti-gays are infringing on the rights of gays, not the other way around.

[DaWoad]

What if we had Straight Pride Parades and marched THAT down the gayest district of your local metropolis? How would that feel?

unless you started rioting/burning buildings no one would care.

[Jusela]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

The minority should have the same equal rights as the majority does. And the majority can only marry people from the opposite sex. Why should minorities have extra rights? They already have the equal rights that the majority have.

Also TurtleShroom makes a great deal of sense.

The majority only wants to marry people from the opposite sex.

Everyone has the right to marry. With someone from the opposite sex, ofc. Homosexuals also have this right. Everyone has literally gotten equal rights. So basically the gays aren't arguing for equal rights, but for "special" rights. Tell me, why should a minority have special rights? Doesn't that discriminate against the majority?

[Marvel Zombies]

I see this as wonderful news. Kudos for common sense.

[Zephie]

Plus, homosexuality is a defiance of human nature. While it has existed since the beginning of mankind, it was never considered “natural” in mordern times until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. (-and don’t say Rome thought it was: just because Calligula or soem other nutjob emperor had gay reproduction doesn’t mean it’s right, he’s not even that good an example!)
If you want to challenge me, take an electrical plug. Now, take another electrical plug. Try to connect the two and turn the two on. It doesn’t work. Now, take that same plug and plug it into an electrical socket. Does it light up?

Animals can be homosexual as well.

Humans are animals. Deductive reasoning much?

[The Rich Port]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any of those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed. Gay marriage is not a right, and denying it is not tyranny. If the people who wrote the Constitution, the founding fathers had meant for those clauses to apply to gays trying to marry, then they would already have been able to do so.

... The only reason gay marriage isn't legal everywhere is because of it's opponents. Srsly... WTF?

On the other hand, it's not expressly forbidden anywhere, either - and the 'equality' argument HAS been upheld before, with reference to marriage rights.

You're arguing against the Constitution AND precedent, on this one.

What the hell sort of logic is this? It doesn't say it isn't illegal in the Constitution, so outlawing it is unconstitutional? lolwut?

Tell it to the Constitution. That's what the 9th Amendment says. EXACTLY.

[Buffett and Colbert]

On the other hand, it's not expressly forbidden anywhere, either - and the 'equality' argument HAS been upheld before, with reference to marriage rights.

You're arguing against the Constitution AND precedent, on this one.

What the hell sort of logic is this? It doesn't say it isn't illegal in the Constitution, so outlawing it is unconstitutional? lolwut?

EDIT: As I've already clearly proven, the Constitution is not on your side, but furthermore social precedent has been to only allow straight couples to marry. If anything, precedent is on my side. I'll now humor myself as you attempt to change your argument, stating that precedent doesn't matter.

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

[Czardas]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any f those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed.

If these liberals care so much about the constitution, where were they when the patriot act was passed?

As I recall from 2003 or so, most of the people up in arms over the patriot act were liberals. Of course, there are only so many "true" liberals in the US and sooner or later they were drawn off by the antiwar rallies.

Regardless, if conservatives really were opposing the Patriot Act back when it was first passed, they were certainly not being loud enough to attract attention. I don't recall hearing much from the right that was critical of Bush or his policies until after his re-election.

[Niur]

America might finally understad what the word freedom means.

This is a joke right? Because if so, I find it hilarious. America has no morality, and the twisted thing they call this is simply the aftermath of hundreds of years of screwed over ideals and pointless traditions. In America, freedom means the right to have no common sense whatsoever and nothing else.