John Adams Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No one actually read the decision, did they? ... This is literally nothing more than a 172-page argument over semantics. Someone hasn't read all the posts in the this thread, have they? (I'd link to the post but really, who cares?) Yes, the opinion boils down to striking down what it's called when two homosexuals join under the law. That people give a !@#$ about enough to spend all the money to have a proposition put to a statewide vote is unreal. Stop wasting my time goddamnit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Someone hasn't read all the posts in the this thread, have they? (I'd link to the post but really, who cares?) Yes, the opinion boils down to striking down what it's called when two homosexuals join under the law. That people give a !@#$ about enough to spend all the money to have a proposition put to a statewide vote is unreal. Stop wasting my time goddamnit. No, I didn't. Didn't really care enough. Only read the decision after I read the AP story, with quotes from the decision, and said to myself "That can't possibly be right." What do you know...it wasn't. Now I'm just amused that everyone's so up-in-arms over semantics - those who are up-in-arms, that is. Just keep it out of my federal Constitution, in any form, or I'm declaring a revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No one actually read the decision, did they? Italics in the original, other emphasis mine. The summary, for those who don't want to read the above, is this: the CA Supreme Court didn't legalize gay marriage or strike down a gay marriage ban. They ruled that existing California law is unconstitutional because it calls a gay marriage a "domestic partnership". The decision says that IF gays can marry, it has to be called "marriage" under the equal protection clause. This is literally nothing more than a 172-page argument over semantics. Then why are they allowing gays to marry in California in 30 days or whenever it goes into effect and get all benefits of opposite sex marriages? The ruling apparently allows gays to marry and get the same rights, and they are already lining up to do it. It seems like the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I didn't know you were a rump ranger. When's the big day? Oooh, that's a good one. Really unexpected too. Using your ridiculous rationale: I guess that means you're a racist who would've been pro-slavery, right? I'm not gay. I just don't care if gay people get married and think people who do are friggin' idiots who don't get that freedom isn't always supposed to be about things that are palatable. It does bother me that gay couples are allowed to adopt children but not for any rational reason. It just doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Then why are they allowing gays to marry in California in 30 days or whenever it goes into effect and get all benefits of opposite sex marriages? The ruling apparently allows gays to marry and get the same rights, and they are already lining up to do it. It seems like the same thing. I think they already had the same legal rights as far as health care, etc. But they were "domestic partnerships" in California, so as not to offend the married zealots who just can't deal with the idea of gay people living the same way they do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I think they already had the same legal rights as far as health care, etc. But they were "domestic partnerships" in California, so as not to offend the married zealots who just can't deal with the idea of gay people living the same way they do... In addition, the word "marriage" is associated with a bevy of legal precedent that some zealot would argue don't apply to "domestic partnerships." And since there was a law passed defining "marriage" as between "a man and woman," there certainly would be a million challenges in the courts based on that. My own personal observation on the homosexuals with kids thing, and I can really only offer anecdotal evidence. My daughter goes to a Quaker school (common in Philadelphia), and there are several families with same sex parents. If anything, I've found them to be some of the most conservative and responsible parents. It's almost like they take parenting extra-seriously because they know they are facing an uphill battle against society. I absolutely have enjoyed meeting them, and their kids all seem well-adjusted. In one case, two gay guys have the straightest (in terms of liking girls and other "manly" behaviors--itching crotch, farting in public and laughing--you know...the caveman stuff) teenage son you could ever meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Oh, terrific, now 13,688,119 real marriages in the south and midwest are completely ruined and meaningless. Only 2 things can do this: a California Supreme Court decision or an episode of COPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 In addition, the word "marriage" is associated with a bevy of legal precedent that some zealot would argue don't apply to "domestic partnerships." And since there was a law passed defining "marriage" as between "a man and woman," there certainly would be a million challenges in the courts based on that. The Supreme Court of California likely just saved the taxpayers a ton of jack... My own personal observation on the homosexuals with kids thing, and I can really only offer anecdotal evidence. My daughter goes to a Quaker school (common in Philadelphia), and there are several families with same sex parents. If anything, I've found them to be some of the most conservative and responsible parents. It's almost like they take parenting extra-seriously because they know they are facing an uphill battle against society. I absolutely have enjoyed meeting them, and their kids all seem well-adjusted. In one case, two gay guys have the straightest (in terms of liking girls and other "manly" behaviors--itching crotch, farting in public and laughing--you know...the caveman stuff) teenage son you could ever meet. Like I said, it's not for any rational reason and I'm not at all passionate about it. It just doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Like I said, it's not for any rational reason and I'm not at all passionate about it. It just doesn't seem right. Understood. It's different. When I first saw two guys show up at my daughter's class with their two sons, I did a solid WTF myself. I'm just relating that it's grown on me. And for the homosexual parents I've met, they treat parenting as a privilege and responsibility--not just something to do because their parents did it. I'm not sure, but I'd bet those homosexual couples all had some long thoughtful talks before having kids--I could only hope hetoeros would do the same but the Britney Spears of the world convince me otherwise. You get something special from having opposite sex parents--a perspective that may be lost when you have 2 same sex parents. But egads, that's one small component of being a good parent and I'd pick a loving caring thoughtful single or homosexual pairing to raise a kid over your average man-woman pairing any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 In addition, the word "marriage" is associated with a bevy of legal precedent that some zealot would argue don't apply to "domestic partnerships." And since there was a law passed defining "marriage" as between "a man and woman," there certainly would be a million challenges in the courts based on that. My own personal observation on the homosexuals with kids thing, and I can really only offer anecdotal evidence. My daughter goes to a Quaker school (common in Philadelphia), and there are several families with same sex parents. If anything, I've found them to be some of the most conservative and responsible parents. It's almost like they take parenting extra-seriously because they know they are facing an uphill battle against society. I absolutely have enjoyed meeting them, and their kids all seem well-adjusted. In one case, two gay guys have the straightest (in terms of liking girls and other "manly" behaviors--itching crotch, farting in public and laughing--you know...the caveman stuff) teenage son you could ever meet. So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny. So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny. So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts? ¡Que ridiculoso! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny. So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts? I guess it would start and end with the definition of homo sapien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny. So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts? Animals and children can't give consent, adult humans can. And why marry the cow when the milk is free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Animals and children can't give consent, adult humans can. And why marry the cow when the milk is free. That's funny...my wife's mother used to tell her that when we were dating. Now every time she doesn't want to give it up I tell her I own the cow...bought and still paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Animals and children can't give consent, adult humans can. And why marry the cow when the milk is free. How do we know they can't? That pinche dog whisperer guy on cable really knows what's up with those dogs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 That's funny...my wife's mother used to tell her that when we were dating. Now every time she doesn't want to give it up I tell her I own the cow...bought and still paying for it. Or you could start singing, "The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny. So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts? Wow, that's a really dumb, emotional response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I can't believe some of the dogs and pigs my friends have married over the years. But hey, who am I to criticize them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Actually it is a serious question. What are the limits of our freedom? Look, I have a sister who is homosexual. I don't hate her, I love her. But why must we be forced to accept these unnatural behaviors as normal? I completely agree that this issue is just one of those 'shiny object' issues to distract us from dealing with the things that will eventually destroy our nation if we don't deal with them. I'm not passionate about this. But at the same time, where does it end? I have gay friends who I regularly associate and spend time with. I don't think any less of them but don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle. But at the end of the day, who really like's everything about another person? We chose to overlook perceived flaws in our friends character in order to maintain a relationship. I'm sure that's how they feel about me also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Actually it is a serious question. What are the limits of our freedom? Look, I have a sister who is homosexual. I don't hate her, I love her. But why must we be forced to accept these unnatural behaviors as normal? I completely agree that this issue is just one of those 'shiny object' issues to distract us from dealing with the things that will eventually destroy our nation if we don't deal with them. I'm not passionate about this. But at the same time, where does it end? I have gay friends who I regularly associate and spend time with. I don't think any less of them but don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle. But at the end of the day, who really like's everything about another person? We chose to overlook perceived flaws in our friends character in order to maintain a relationship. I'm sure that's how they feel about me also. Again, it starts with the scientific acknowledgment that homosexuality is a normal human trait that is accounted for in about 5% of the population. You don't choose it, it chooses you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts