SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Boris Godunov]

Accursed DP

[FS*]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




Why would all these couples, who have been committed to each other for a long time already, up and decide to get divorced within the next few weeks?

All these couples? A rather broad assumption there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And it has spread to New Mexico:

http://www.denverpost.com/cda/articl...968558,00.html

They seem to have more a leg to stand on give the current vagueness of the law in New Mexico.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed, DD. While I'm for gay marriages, it is amusing to see people back San Fran against California's law, while a few months ago they wanted the Alabama Supreme Court judge to get slapped down because he was going against federal law. At least be consistent.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's happened in San Francisco has changed the terms of debate dramatically IMO. It's going to become much more difficult for bigots and hate-mongers to portray gay marriage as some form of perversion, when TV viewers have seen only people who obviously love each other deeply.

Yeah. You are really soothing those who see marriage as more than just a promise to love someone.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed, DD. While I'm for gay marriages, it is amusing to see people back San Fran against California's law, while a few months ago they wanted the Alabama Supreme Court judge to get slapped down because he was going against federal law. At least be consistent.

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

How can they be separate when the majority's religous beliefs become law. Everyone is not a heterosexual christian.

Some are homosexual, Buddhists, Muslims, and etc. Practicing your lifestyle in ways that really don't effect the next man should not be made illegal. It's also hypocritical of the land of the free to constantly restrict freedoms. Ben Kenobi is still going to be able to get into heaven if gays marry eachother. That judge will still be able to get into heaven if he separates church from state. But if you restrict people who love eachother from being happy, is that not oppresion. If you force a person to yield to your religous beliefs is that not oppression.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

I think they are the same for another reason. A more local legal entity is violating the laws set up by a higher legal entity. In Alabama, the state SC was violating federal Constitutional law. In California, San Fran was violating California state law.

If you condemn one for violation of the law, then I think you have to condemn the other.

It's also hypocritical of the land of the free to constantly restrict freedoms.

It is impossible for a society to exist if no freedoms are restricted, so you can't use the 'land of free' should be free arguments. Your other ones are better.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus


I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

How can they be separate when the majority's religous beliefs become law. Everyone is not a heterosexual christian.

Some are homosexual, Buddhists, Muslims, and etc. Practicing your lifestyle in ways that really don't effect the next man should not be made illegal. It's also hypocritical of the land of the free to constantly restrict freedoms. Ben Kenobi is still going to be able to get into heaven if gays marry eachother. That judge will still be able to get into heaven if he separates church from state. But if you restrict people who love eachother from being happy, is that not oppresion. If you force a person to yield to your religous beliefs is that not oppression.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

I think they are the same for another reason. A more local legal entity is violating the laws set up by a higher legal entity. In Alabama, the state SC was violating federal Constitutional law. In California, San Fran was violating California state law.

If you condemn one for violation of the law, then I think you have to condemn the other.

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed. Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

[Imran Siddiqui]

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed. Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

So was it ok for Judge Moore to place those 10 Commandments in the SC building? He obviously believed it was an unjust law which prevented him from doing so.

I'd like to the see people first try to change the law through the law (ie, court), rather than decide just to violate it without going to the courts.

[Ben Kenobi]

PA:

Ben Kenobi is still going to be able to get into heaven if gays marry each other.

Do you think that it is for my sake that I oppose this redefinition of marriage?

But if you restrict people who love eachother from being happy, is that not oppresion.

How does the government have a duty to people to make them happy?

If you force a person to yield to your religous beliefs is that not oppression.

So marriage is entirely defined by religious authorities and not the state? There are civil reasons and civil benefits that are derived from keeping marriage as one man and one woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed.

But is the current law unjust? How are homosexuals restricted from loving their partners under the current regime?

Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

Then the people must have a say, and not the courts. The issue must come to a vote.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do you think that it is for my sake that I oppose this redefinition of marriage?

For whose sake do you oppose it then?

[Ben Kenobi]

For whose sake do you oppose it then?

Society in general. I think we do very well with marriage as it is, and I think we do poorly when we get away from that.

[Pax]

BK,
Just because the majority of people vote for or against something does not make it the right thing to do. Can you tell us how it effects you if John and John got married.

Even if you feel it's an abomination against God, it still has no real effect on you. Even if your children see it they won't catch it and become gay. Your wife won't wake up one morning with homo fever. Why can't you let these peopel marry.

Also many gay people have fought and died for this country. They deserve every right of an american citizen. There are gays in Iraq right now serving a President that will let them die for his beliefs but not marry for theirs. Is that justice? is that fair?