Andrew in CA Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 ....lybob said: let the state perform legal civil unions and let religious or social institutions perform marriage why is this so freaken hard- one is the union of legal/financial entities the other the union of spiritual/emotional entities. I don't think that would satisfy those opposed to gay marriage... wouldn't they oppose the unions regardless of how they are characterized?
LeviF Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Joe In Macungie said: How sweet. I can't wait until the day that it is proven beyond all doubt that being homosexual is not a choice. Then those of you who currently claim otherwise will either have to embrace them (God is love, right?) or just admit you hate them because they're "different."
Fingon Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 I haven't looked at the case, but the judge sounds extremely biased to me.
Andrew in CA Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Fingon said: I haven't looked at the case, but the judge sounds extremely biased to me. Based on what, then?
NorCal Aaron Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 MarkVaderr50 said: Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges. Good thing there are judges to protect the people from the will of some people.
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Joe In Macungie said: Q: what's the point of having direct propositions when some over-officious judge can just decide it's not law? I mean, why not just have judges run the whole country? Because federal statues still take precedence over state, which means direct propositions or no, state law that violates federal law is invalid.
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 kegtapr said: When the prop beng voted on allows the majority to discriminate against the minority, then yes, an over-officious judge can just decide it's not a law. That's bull ****. Not only is that not a legal principle, the majority discriminates against the minority with alarming frequency.
LeviF Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 ....lybob said: let the state perform legal civil unions and let religious or social institutions perform marriage why is this so freaken hard- one is the union of legal/financial entities the other the union of spiritual/emotional entities. It makes too much sense. We're too goddamn smart for that.
Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Andrew in LA said: it's going to be appealed to the 9th Circuit pronto. Wonder how that's going to turn out? Take that, zealots.
....lybob Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Andrew in LA said: I don't think that would satisfy those opposed to gay marriage... wouldn't they oppose the unions regardless of how they are characterized? True but framed in this way it would take cover away from the hypocrites who oppose it on religious grounds- churches have the right to marry or not marry as they see fit, and the government serves as creator and arbitrator of a legal contract, separation of Church and State is a pretty good idea.
Andrew in CA Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Alaska Darin said: Wonder how that's going to turn out? Take that, zealots. I'm interested to see if the US Supreme Court takes the case.
Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Joe In Macungie said: Q: what's the point of having direct propositions when some over-officious judge can just decide it's not law? I mean, why not just have judges run the whole country? You mean because that's what happened? I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand what "equal" under the law is. Laws that are put in place to obviously discriminate should be struck down in an expeditious manner, as this one was.
kegtapr Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 DC Tom said: That's bull ****. Not only is that not a legal principle, the majority discriminates against the minority with alarming frequency. With prop 8 being the perfect example. Life sucks and the majority usually will win, but the system worked in this case.
Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Andrew in LA said: I'm interested to see if the US Supreme Court takes the case. Given my complete lack of faith in the Court, I hope they don't.
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 MarkVaderr50 said: Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges. Although, as a Californian, I can not say I'm shocked. The will of the people of the state of California can't override a clause in the Constitution. Federal law is not an a la carte menu. Funny thing is that this will ultimately end up with a Supreme Court decision that gay marriage can't legally be banned under the equal protection clause, thereby meaning that the people of the great, confused state of California will have legalized gay marriage via trying to ban it. Good job, Californians. Andrew in LA said: This is definitely not the end of this case, though. It's going to the 9th Circuit, and then hopefully to the US Supreme Court, if they grow a pair and grant review. The 9th Circus...my favorite source of judicial what-the-!@#$ery. Sometimes I think that court requires mushrooms to be consumed on the bench.
kegtapr Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 LeviF91 said: I can't wait until the day that it is proven beyond all doubt that being homosexual is not a choice. Then those of you who currently claim otherwise will either have to embrace them (God is love, right?) or just admit you hate them because they're "different." It never will be proven in the eyes of ignorant twits.
Fingon Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Andrew in LA said: Based on what, then? The fact that he is gay. He has a vested interest in this law being declared unconstitutional.
LeviF Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 DC Tom said: The 9th Circus...my favorite source of judicial what-the-!@#$ery. Sometimes I think that court requires mushrooms to be consumed on the bench. Pre-court tea...
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 LeviF91 said: I can't wait until the day that it is proven beyond all doubt that being homosexual is not a choice. It actually is a choice...to the same degree that being hetero is a choice.
LeviF Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Fingon said: The fact that he is gay. He has a vested interest in this law being declared unconstitutional. As does the constitution.
Recommended Posts