Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

And lots of people, including Jefferson, have noted that "the will of the people" can not be used to deny rights to the minority.

So show me where there's a right to marry in the constitution. Gay people have the exact same ability to marry as anyone else.

Think of the irony - you were born in the wrong century, but the belief systems you advocate would have locked your ass up to howl at the moon.

I see. So what you're saying is that faithful Catholics no longer have a place in the America of today.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Perhaps I should say that the majority of Californians were embarrassed to live in a state where 48 percent of them embrace sodomy.

Actually, it's about 61 percent now, and they embrace the "It's nobody else's business, and you self-righteous bible thumpers can go **** yourselves" point of view.

[MichaeltheGreat]

[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6209290]So show me where there's a right to marry in the constitution. Gay people have the exact same ability to marry as anyone else.
[quote]

You tried that sophomoric horse**** years ago. Asked and answered.

I see. So what you're saying is that faithful Catholics no longer have a place in the America of today.

If you think you have some right to impose your point of view on others, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Current polling suggests a 60+ to low 30s split in California, so if SCOTUS doesn't fix the abomination of Prop. 8, you can bet the voters will

Then they are welcome to try.

Personally I think the Supreme Court would be wise to say exactly this - strike it down and then say this. Imposing it by judicial fiat is just going to piss off folks who might otherwise support you.

[DinoDoc]

Current polling suggests a 60+ to low 30s split in California, so if SCOTUS doesn't fix the abomination of Prop. 8, you can bet the voters will.

If this is correct, what's the point of the gay lobby going through with this case? Just get the sigs needed to put a repeal on the ballot and be done with it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, it's about 61 percent now, and they embrace the "It's nobody else's business, and you self-righteous bible thumpers can go **** yourselves" point of view

If it's nobody's business to know who I am married to, then why can't I marry 2 women? Yes, it is someone's business. This is why you are pushing for the state to recognize your opinion and enforce it by law.

Let's be honest here, MtG.

[Asher]

If it's nobody's business to know who I am married to, then why can't I marry 2 women?

Because you can't even marry one.

[snoopy369]

Ah, I see. So because their opinions differ from your own, that lets you label them as bigoted? I see.

Personally I'm not shocked to hear you claim that anyone who believes gay marriage to be wrong is 'embarrassed by their opinion'. I'm not embarrassed by it at all. Everyone who's a faithful Catholic should hold this opinion.

Perhaps I should say that the majority of Californians were embarrassed to live in a state where 48 percent of them embrace sodomy.

The act is prima facie bigoted. The argument is whether or not it's an appropriate bigotry, or not.

Dictionary.com:

big·ot·ed [big-uh-tid]
adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

We as a country are bigoted against murderers. We are (mostly) not bigoted against black people. The question here is whether or not California will be bigoted against people who want to be married to other people of the same sex.

In any event, my point has nothing to do with this, other than my word use. I suggest that many of the people in California _have changed their minds_ and are embarrassed to have held that opinion at one time (see Clinton, Bill). It has nothing to do with the 52-48 and everything to do with the 61%+ opposed to it now.

[snoopy369]

If this is correct, what's the point of the gay lobby going through with this case? Just get the sigs needed to put a repeal on the ballot and be done with it.

Again, they're not going through with anything. The anti-gay lobby is going through with this case - once the district court ruling was in the favor of the "gay lobby", every other step has been by the anti-gay lobby. Are you saying they should just roll over and not make their arguments?

[DinoDoc]

Are you saying they should just roll over and not make their arguments?

I thought I was clear what I thought should happen if MtG's claim about polling is correct. Just get the sigs needed to put a repeal on the ballot and be done with it.

[Ben Kenobi]

You tried that sophomoric horse**** years ago. Asked and answered.

So what you are arguing is that marriage discrimination is when you cannot marry whomever you want? Nobody has that right. I can't marry someone who is already married, someone who is related to me by the prohibited degrees or someone who's too young.

Are you ok with striking down these restrictions too?

If you think you have some right to impose your point of view on others

Why not? Your side believes in fighting bigotry does it not - so clearly imposing your values on other people is a-ok. If you can do it, why can't we?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because you can't even marry one.

Humor me. Why can't I marry two women if I love them both? It's all about loving and being with the people you love, right?

[MRT144]

Humor me. Why can't I marry two women if I love them both? It's all about loving and being with the people you love, right?

We havent developed the law far enough to deal with a 3 person marriage. In strictly binary coupling, we already have a framework, so what does gender matter?

Now you can just GTFO with your appeals to god and tradition.

[MRT144]

So what you are arguing is that marriage discrimination is when you cannot marry whomever you want? Nobody has that right. I can't marry someone who is already married, someone who is related to me by the prohibited degrees or someone who's too young.

Are you ok with striking down these restrictions too?



Why not? Your side believes in fighting bigotry does it not - so clearly imposing your values on other people is a-ok. If you can do it, why can't we?

Your values are harmful where as love is not harmful.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I fail to see how one can make a distinction between a roomate and a spouse unless the union is an essential part of marriage. Sex is relevant, color is not.

Ant-miscegenation laws were coupled, pun intended, with illicit cohabitation laws. Color was entirely relevant, just as much as bastardization. The difference is that marriage and illicit cohabitation laws could wash away the taint of bastardization, but some foreign mockery of marriage not only could not wash away the sin of miscegenation, it would actually promote it in the minds of the feeble-minded, so the state had to step in and protect the sanctity of marriage by making sure to prevent miscegenation.

The state's stated interests in marriage included promoting the purity and separation of the races. It was to protect the children. After all, little mulatto babies couldn't function in proper white society and would be suject to ridicule and contempt, but they wouldn't be accepted by all those savage little pickaninnies either.