Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

What exactly does "powergrab" mean in your reality?

I'm having to assume it somehow connects to solo manual stimulation.

[Soheran]

I'd just like to ask one question: how does Prop. 8 PROTECT PROCREATION?

The argument is a bit obscure, but it goes something like this:

1. Currently, we have a norm that procreative sex should occur only within the bounds of marriage, for the sake of children.
2. Same-sex couples practice non-procreative sex.
3. Therefore, including same-sex couples in marriage would undermine the character of marriage as an institution specifically seeking to regulate procreative sex and connect parents to offspring.
4. Harming the norm mentioned in 1 will bring about certain social harms (children out of wedlock, etc.)
5. Therefore, there is a rational basis for Prop. 8.

No, it doesn't actually make any sense, if you think about it. But that's what it is.

[Katganistan]

I find it hard to believe that the US constitution even mentions marriage.

It doesn't. It does mention equal rights and protections under the law in the 14th Amendment.

[Farnhamia]

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?

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

As far as I can tell, because then people will marry dogs and toasters.

Which makes me worry a lot about the people that make those kinds of arguments... seriously, the ONLY reason you haven't married a toaster is because you're not legally allowed to?

[The Comments Section]

I find it hard to believe that the US constitution even mentions marriage.

It doesn't. It does mention equal rights and protections under the law in the 14th Amendment.

Which, also tieing it with a precedent court case I believe, it's interpretation as a violation is justified.

[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

[Farnhamia]

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?

As far as I can tell, because then people will marry dogs and toasters.

Which makes me worry a lot about the people that make those kinds of arguments... seriously, the ONLY reason you haven't married a toaster is because you're not legally allowed to?

As I used to tell my mom, it's because I haven't found the right toaster yet.

[SaintB]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

[Kalibarr]

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

I'm not.

[Farnhamia]

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.

[Zephie]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights. There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

[SaintB]

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 your not in love with another man either.

[DaWoad]

No. Dems are going to get pounded in the election around here.

To put a constitutional amendment before the voters, the Republicans will need to control both houses of the legislature for two consecutive terms. Then, the constitutional amendment will have to actually win.

Right now, they control neither house. And their time is running out. Within a few years, a constitutional amendment would lose--a process of mind-changing expedited by the actual presence of married same-sex couples sans world-ending catastrophe. That's if they can get the thing through the legislature, twice, which they may not be able to do even with control.

The Republicans will let the people vote, and the faggots will lose.

It will delight me endlessly to see your bigoted hopes revealed for the substanceless wishful thinking they are.

That's all there is to it, and you can go back to your bullshit in Iowa City, and leave the rest of Iowa the hell alone.

Sorry. We don't observe your arbitrary boundaries. And you will not stop us, whatever you try, whatever you do. Ever.

Deal with it.

Lol ok everyone will just fall in love with fag marriage and the Republicans will never ever control both both houses of the legislature for 2 terms in a row. Right after Hell freezes over.

Why do you use the term "fag" marriage? What do you have against gays?

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.

Damn you are one hardcore homophobe. Honestly can't remember anyone quite as . . .close minded as this posting on this forum for quite some time.

[Farnhamia]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights. There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

Why does it have to be a man and a woman?

[Katganistan]

His point was to demonstrate that marriage is a right, something you denied.

I didn't deny it. I asked whether or not it was specifically written into the constitution as a right, and if not, whether it fell under another specific right.

Don't try to make me out to be the bad guy. I'm just asking questions. It's not my fault that the laws of your country were written up by chimps.

Just because the law exists does not make it constitutional.

Ok, your country's legal system is retarded. Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

This is not advancing the discussion in any way, and is designed to provoke others.
Knock it off.

[Kalibarr]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights. There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

There would be nothing stopping straight people from marrying someone from their own sex as well, so it would not be a special right.

[Sarzonia]

It"s is horribly disgusting. It's morally atrocious. I'm not sure how it's not some sort of mental disorder.

Bigotry is a mental disorder.

[SaintB]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights. There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

Many cultures married men to each other.... your argument fails.

[The Comments Section]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights. There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

Maybe within a religious institution, but we are talking about government-recognized partnerships and marriages in that sense here, in which case it's fairly unequivocally an equality issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights.

Actually, if marriage is just 'a man and a woman' - then hetero marriage rights are the 'special' rights, here.

[DaWoad]

[
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.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman,

According to whom? At one point marriage was between two people of the same race only and before that two people of the same race and religion. If you want to make a case for why this should be the case go ahead but so far all I've seen is arguments you've failed to substantiate then dropped when they've been proven horribly horribly wrong.

so it's not more rights, it's special rights.

no, its not, it's the same rights as eveyrone else. Every heterosexual person has a right to marry anyone they are attracted too what possible harm could be done by granting the same to every homosexual and bisexual person?

There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

There aren't that many polygamists out there but this argument is cracked anyway as simply because one group doesn't have rights doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fighting for them anyway.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

Which is wonderful for you.

How many men have you WANTED to marry?

[Apertior]

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

Hence "whomever you want."
You don't want to marry another man, but gay people do, and they should be able to.

[Lelouche]

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?

Children cannot consent to sex. Adults can.

Who says marriage is about sex?
people clearly have sex outside of marriage
This is false dichotomy