California

[outsidethebox]

That doesn't mean that the outcome is good(not saying it is or it isn't here)......just that a majority of the population views things in a similar manner. There has been many issues in history(again, not saying that this is one of them) that if given over to the general population to determine rather than those elected to govern, the 'wrong' decision would have been made.

You mean like the election last night?

[erynthered]

I hate stupid closeminded people.

 

 

Me too.

[SDS]

That doesn't mean that the outcome is good(not saying it is or it isn't here)......just that a majority of the population views things in a similar manner. There has been many issues in history(again, not saying that this is one of them) that if given over to the general population to determine rather than those elected to govern, the 'wrong' decision would have been made.

 

I understand. However, there are a handful of posters here who want to marginalize/trivialize the opposition to this issue as simply hate/bigotry by a fringe portion of the electorate. Clearly, it is not.

[John Adams]

Please link where I said gay people would abuse it because I didn't and do not think they would.

 

I read the one post I responded to. I thought you were implying something about same sex people marrying to take advantage of benefits. If I misinterpreted, I don't care. You're crayonz.

[John Adams]

oh agreed, but that is why you have to write the thing with so much specificity because there will always be someone to push the envelope and some judge who will say that it doesn't violate anything.

CA already allows gay marriage. Apparently what people on this board want is a law specifying something about prohibiting teaching gay marriage in schools. Is there a similar law about teaching hetero marriage? No. Is there a law about teaching about dating? No. Is there a law about teaching jacking off? No.

 

Why?

 

Not every goddamn thing in the world needs a law. Teachers can already teach about gay marriage.

[John Adams]

I understand. However, there are a handful of posters here who want to marginalize/trivialize the opposition to this issue as simply hate/bigotry by a fringe portion of the electorate. Clearly, it is not.

 

Are your arguments against gay marriage in the "unnatural" vein? Or are they because it's against the Bible? I can't remember. Been a while since we tread that ground.

[erynthered]

Not every goddamn thing in the world needs a law.

 

 

Really? You're pretty much endorsing one.

[erynthered]

Are your arguments against gay marriage in the "unnatural" vein? Or are they because it's against the Bible? I can't remember. Been a while since we tread that ground.

 

 

How'bout its his business , and not the Gov/Schools business how his children are schooled on it?

[SDS]

Are your arguments against gay marriage in the "unnatural" vein? Or are they because it's against the Bible? I can't remember. Been a while since we tread that ground.

 

Not going there. You clearly don't want to discuss the issue - you just want people to speak and then slap them down as haters/bigots who would be better off dead.

 

Whack-a-Mole was fun at Darien Lake, but I prefer not to engage in those types of debates anymore.

[erynthered]

I understand. However, there are a handful of posters here who want to marginalize/trivialize the opposition to this issue as simply hate/bigotry by a fringe portion of the electorate. Clearly, it is not.

 

I got your moderate hangin when it comes to my kids, BTW

[SDS]

Not every goddamn thing in the world needs a law. Teachers can already teach about gay marriage.

 

I think you know that your stance here is extremely disingenuous. You know every well that if there is a law that says you HAVE to teach about marriage, then this gives them political coverage to go ahead and do that w/o parental interference.

 

Yes, they can teach it now, but they would have to deal with the parents. I know you know this. Being this unyielding only hardens people in their stance.

[John Adams]

How'bout its his business , and not the Gov/Schools business how his children are schooled on it?

 

That. Was. Not. In. The. Law.

 

Loophole.

 

Teachers can already teach it.

 

Third Base.

[IDBillzFan]

Is there a similar law about teaching hetero marriage?

Yes. And if you spent time looking into this instead of quickly standing in judgement of something that you're trying to discuss based on a single-paragraph synopsis of the entire !@#$ing proposition, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to criticize. The law exists, which is why they would include teaching about GAY marriage.

 

And for the record, over five million people voted this ban in. And while Johnny keeps calling it a "whim," I'll repeat...this is the second time the vote has been put before the residents because the judges keep overriding what the !@#$ing people in this state keep overwhelmingly vote for. How many times do we need to keep spending tax payers' dollars to show these !@#$ing judges that WE'VE ALREADY MADE UP OUR MIND.

 

So let's recap: you don't care about what the five million voters in California have to say. You only care about how we're not doing what YOU think is right.

 

Well, here's an idea: come to California and change the !@#$ing laws. But for Christ's sake, stop chastising people because their opinion is different from yours or because you simply can not grasp WHY we voted the way we voted.

 

Jesus.

[erynthered]

That. Was. Not. In. The. Law.

 

Loophole.

 

Teachers can already teach it.

 

Third Base.

 

 

 

Funny how you bring a third baseman in. I've dealt with them for almost 30 years, and you're no different.. You'll get you're laws John Adams. But it doesn't change the fact that SOME parents want to parent!! Not count on the gov to take care of that teaching. Like we need help with that.

[John Adams]

I think you know that your stance here is extremely disingenuous. You know every well that if there is a law that says you HAVE to teach about marriage, then this gives them political coverage to go ahead and do that w/o parental interference.

 

Yes, they can teach it now, but they would have to deal with the parents. I know you know this. Being this unyielding only hardens people in their stance.

 

To your first point, I am guessing you meant some curriculum requirement (not law) but if there is, and schools have to mention that marriage can be between same sex partners, who cares? They already hear about a lot of other crap in school. This is just more.

 

To your second point (that I'm being an unyielding prick), no kidding. Not on this round but when it came through PA, I had close friends who raise families who were really hurt by this. Not in a gay pride have a parade way. But in a quiet tears in the eyes "How am I supposed to explain this sort of discrimination to my kids" sort of way. Once upon a time, blacks had to explain why they couldn't drink from water fountains to their kids. Two couple friends (one women, the other men) had to explain to their kids that they still couldn't be married. One couple is Christian--so the very word means more to them. The other is not--but it still means something to them that they are unequal under law. And that's a sh------- thing to have to explain to your kids.

 

And that's what the Cali people did. So I'll be unyielding. I've sat out at least 5 gay marriage threads in the last few years. I've more than made up for it here but I'm done.

[Jon in Pasadena]

...this is the second time the vote has been put before the residents because the judges keep overriding what the !@#$ing people in this state keep overwhelmingly vote for. How many times do we need to keep spending tax payers' dollars to show these !@#$ing judges that WE'VE ALREADY MADE UP OUR MIND.

You do realize that it's in the job description of those !@#$ing judges (California Supreme Court) to rule on the constitutionality of laws in the State of California, right? And their ruling (which you are free to disagree with) was that the previous law was UN-constitutional, regardless of how many people voted for it. That's how the process works. That's why this time it was framed as an amendment to the State Constitution - to make it impossible for the CSC to over-rule it on those grounds. Now, I guess, it would need to be appealed at the Federal level (state constitutions cannot violate the U.S. constitution)

[erynthered]

To your first point, I am guessing you meant some curriculum requirement (not law) but if there is, and schools have to mention that marriage can be between same sex partners, who cares? They already hear about a lot of other crap in school. This is just more.

 

To your second point (that I'm being an unyielding prick), no kidding. Not on this round but when it came through PA, I had close friends who raise families who were really hurt by this. Not in a gay pride have a parade way. But in a quiet tears in the eyes "How am I supposed to explain this sort of discrimination to my kids" sort of way. Once upon a time, blacks had to explain why they couldn't drink from water fountains to their kids. Two couple friends (one women, the other men) had to explain to their kids that they still couldn't be married. One couple is Christian--so the very word means more to them. The other is not--but it still means something to them that they are unequal under law. And that's a sh------- thing to have to explain to your kids.

 

And that's what the Cali people did. So I'll be unyielding. I've sat out at least 5 gay marriage threads in the last few years. I've more than made up for it here but I'm done.

 

 

How am I suppose to explain this to my kids? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDIN ME!! If this is on the front table for teaching your kids, well...........

[elegantelliotoffen]

I understand. However, there are a handful of posters here who want to marginalize/trivialize the opposition to this issue as simply hate/bigotry by a fringe portion of the electorate. Clearly, it is not.

 

You're right. It's clearly just stupidity.

[bills_fan]

CA already allows gay marriage. Apparently what people on this board want is a law specifying something about prohibiting teaching gay marriage in schools. Is there a similar law about teaching hetero marriage? No. Is there a law about teaching about dating? No. Is there a law about teaching jacking off? No.

 

Why?

 

Not every goddamn thing in the world needs a law. Teachers can already teach about gay marriage.

 

 

This post leads me to one of two conclusions...

 

1- You have not read nor thought about anyone else's post.

 

2- You are pulling a hogboy and trying to bait.

 

EDIT: Now I read your post regarding discrimination. That is a very valid point, not real sure why you didn't make it in the first place. What you should be questioning is why are these laws not drafted better? If they were, this measure would have sailed through California. Most every poster in this thread, myself included, have no problem with gay marriage and really believe it ought to be legal.

[justnzane]

You do realize that it's in the job description of those !@#$ing judges (California Supreme Court) to rule on the constitutionality of laws in the State of California, right? And their ruling (which you are free to disagree with) was that the previous law was UN-constitutional. That's how the process works. That's why this time it was framed as an amendment to the State Constitution - to make it impossible for the CSC to over-rule it on those grounds. Now, I guess, it would need to be appealed at the Federal level (state constitutions cannot violate the U.S. constitution)

 

the closest i think that made for argument of the supreme court would be the 9th amendment:

Existence of other rights for the people.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

 

Or possibly the 14th:

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Otherwise, the gays have to wait their turn, as the minority that bends over for society at large.