Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Desperate Measures]

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.

Again - WHAT? You're saying conservatives were the ones protesting the Patriot Act????

[Gahaldu]

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.

Your point doesn't make sense. Most vehicles in the U.S. run on gasoline. Should we outlaw the selling of diesel fuel?

[Karsol]

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?

How is it special right if they marry someone they are not TOLD to marry? It is a free country that celebrates LIBERTY.
And how would homosexual marriage impede on the rights of the Majority?

[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.

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?

Marriage=/= heterosexual marriage. I can't even believe I'm responding to this, though.

[Zephie]

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.

That's nice, but marriage is a woman + a man, so no rights are being denied to gays. They also have the ability to marry the opposite sex.

[Greater Americania]

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

Gay marriage is not a right, and a court case resolution is not a constitutional amendment. As I've been saying, the actions of the Courts are unconstitutional.

[Knowlandia]

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.

With that logic, courts are unconstitutional. If you don't want gays getting married, just say so, stop pretending that you're trying to prove whats right.

[Niur]

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.

I protested the war in 2003 when I was uhm.. 7 or something liek that? 6, 7 or 8. One of those three.

[Zephie]

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

Gay marriage is not a right, and a court case resolution is not a constitutional amendment. As I've been saying, the actions of the Courts are unconstitutional.

Exactly. Gays are trying to change what marriage is, so society will accommodate to their culture.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

Gay marriage is not a right, and a court case resolution is not a constitutional amendment. As I've been saying, the actions of the Courts are unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS says its a Constitutional right, it is. Period (unless its overturned by another SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional Amendment). Constitutional Law 101.

[Sdaeriji]

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?

How is it a special right? Straight people would be afforded the same opportunities to marry members of their sex as gay people. Everyone would be equal.

Honestly, it takes literally the least amount of effort imaginable to entirely deconstruct homophobic arguments.

[Czardas]

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?

They wouldn't be special rights, since heterosexuals could also marry people of the same sex if this kind of marriage was permitted.

[DaWoad]

Have you noticed that through much of history, the governments of the world become more liberal every time? I mean just look at England! They used to have an absolute monarchy. Now, it's basically a Parliamentary system.
The left will win in many cases, because the ideas of liberalism change with each generation. It's just the facts.

It is a downward trend, yes.

*shrugs* I prefer this to monarchy and monarchy to despotism.

Really I see it as an upward trend.

[Karsol]

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.

That's nice, but marriage is a woman + a man, so no rights are being denied to gays. They also have the ability to marry the opposite sex.

Who's definition? there are several religion OLDER than Christianity that have no bias against those who do not wish to marry their opposites.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

Outlawing it unevenly, sure.

The Constitution allows for rights that are not specifically enumerated, but requires that all be applied equally.

Hence, treating marriage as an un-enumerated right, it has to be applied without discrimination, or it's unconstitutional.

EDIT: As I've already clearly proven, the Constitution is not on your side,

You've done no such thing.

... but furthermore social precedent has been to only allow straight couples to marry.

Legal precedent, darling - we're talking about law.

[Greater Americania]

With that logic, courts are unconstitutional. If you don't want gays getting married, just say so, stop pretending that you're trying to prove whats right.

I could say the reverse for your side. Stop pretending the Constitution supports you and just admit you don't care and support gay marriage even though constitutional clauses approved for the Californian Constitution by the voters forbid it.

[The Rich Port]

Okay... I'm sensing a little bit of religious bias from a few people on here.

[New Amerik]

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.

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


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.

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?

Learn a lesson from plumbing or computing: everything goes into something, and a male plug and a male plug don’t work. There must be something it fits into for the current to be carried! It’s common sense!

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.

Religiously, there is no Biblical reason barring interracial marriage, but marriage is defined in the Bible. This is not a Christian nation and it's not a nation that is permitted to have a state faith, but I don't think someone has the right to violate another's absolute core beliefs. Besides, this was NEVER a problem until recently. If it was so important, why didn't the so-called "gay rights" spring up when the real battles began in the 1960s?

---

At least this affront to decency won’t touch Georgia. Yet.

I guess we’ll have to take it higher. FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, here we come! I am confident that the silent majority will stop this madness if it begins knocking on their home state's door.

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.


(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?)

If you want marriage protected, change the law so that only Christians may get married. Simple as that.

Me, I just take offense at your business. I still remember hearing from my grandparents when they talked about their parents and so on about "NO IRISH NEED APPLY"

But frankly, heterosexuality is as much a disease as homosexuality. Thus, there should be therapy centers to help deal with changing hetersexuals into homosexuals. That would be fair.

[Marvel Zombies]

Okay... I'm sensing a little bit of religious bias from a few people on here.

It is the internet after all, dear chum.

[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.

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

ah so it was the conservatives protesting the judgment of the president . . .that they elected. . .and then elected again a little while later.

I think that you, sir, fail at logic.

[Conserative Morality]

That's nice, but marriage is a woman + a man, so no rights are being denied to gays. They also have the ability to marry the opposite sex.

Under what definition?

[Niur]

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

Gay marriage is not a right, and a court case resolution is not a constitutional amendment. As I've been saying, the actions of the Courts are unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS says its a Constitutional right, it is. Period (unless its overturned by another SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional Amendment). Constitutional Law 101.

Got a point. I belive the whole purpose of the judicial branch is to decide what the constitution means. At least on a national scale.

[Almaniania]

Have you noticed that through much of history, the governments of the world become more liberal every time? I mean just look at England! They used to have an absolute monarchy. Now, it's basically a Parliamentary system.
The left will win in many cases, because the ideas of liberalism change with each generation. It's just the facts.

It is a downward trend, yes.

No it isn't. If anything, it is a better world now than it was before!

[Greater Americania]

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?

Outlawing it unevenly, sure.

The Constitution allows for rights that are not specifically enumerated, but requires that all be applied equally.

Hence, treating marriage as an un-enumerated right, it has to be applied without discrimination, or it's unconstitutional.

Just because the Constitution says there are other rights not listed, under no circumstances indicates gay marriage as one of those rights. If you seriously think that politicians of the 18th century wrote that with gay marriage in mind, you're even dumber that you sound.

Legal precedent, darling - we're talking about law.

Legal precedent has been to not allow it throughout history.

[Grave_n_idle]

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

Gay marriage is not a right, and a court case resolution is not a constitutional amendment. As I've been saying, the actions of the Courts are unconstitutional.

Exactly. Gays are trying to change what marriage is, so society will accommodate to their culture.

Marriage is a contractual mechanism. The attempt to 'change what marriage is' has already happened many times throughout recorded history.