Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[Delmar]

There are several ways in which people become homosexuals. Most are born with it. It is a physiological condition. They really don't have a choice in the matter. Sure, they could spend there whole life in denial, but that's no way to live. There are also a small percentage of homosexuals that have had years of mental and physical abuse (mostly as a child) that lead them to there sexual confusion. Then there are those who actually choose to be homosexuals. These folks also suffer form a mental disorder often stemming from childhood abuse.

I'm not sure why there are still people out there that will deny scientific fact in the name of their own insecurities. It is really a lead weight in humanities mental evolution.

To tell someone that they are a sinner for being their natural selves is a shameful behavior. IMO, it's more of a sin then the vary act that you accuse.

The "IMO" is the real issue here. People doing what is right in their own minds!

 

[groovatron]

Wow... God is in our presence. The Grand Arbiter of what is sin and what is not...

The "IMO" is the real issue here. People doing what is right in their own minds!

If you want to deny the truth of science, that's your own choice. I've done mininal labeling on what is and isn't sin. The physiological side of homosexuality is fact, NOT OPINION. Next thing you'll tell me is that it's a "sin" to have cerebral palsy. I'm not sure why or how you guys can take comfort in you selective, judgemental ways, but it certainly isn't very Jesus-like of you.

And to think people actually question my disdain for religion. Perhaps it's not the religion itself, but the people who use it to support their blatant bigotry.

So go ahead, take comfort in your opinion because afterall, you are just acting as God wants you too, right? You are just spreading the word of God.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This argument is degenerating into: Is homosexuality a sin or natural behavior that should be accepted. Those who are pro-gay are not going to accept Biblical proscriptions against homosexuality; those who are Christian are not going to agree with any of the arguments that homosexuality is OK. The atheists' views are primarily anti-Christian, as I am reading them. For us Christians, the ultimate fate of all of us sinners is out of our hands and in the Grace of God; it's a matter of faith and no amount of argument is going to convince those who don't believe the way we do.

I suggest we go back to debating whether or not this ruling goes against the Constitution in some respect, and leave matters of sin and faith out of it. I know I'm getting tired of being accused of cultural bigotry and I'm sure the non-believers are tired of hearing they're going to hell (a bit of hyperbole here, please forgive it).

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Not to be argumentative, but stating that homosexuality is physiological and that's a Fact, is a bit strong. There is research that may indicate that theory, but it's not a proven fact like Thermodynamics. Just saying.

 

[Delmar]

If you want to deny the truth of science, that's your own choice. I've done mininal labeling on what is and isn't sin. The physiological side of homosexuality is fact, NOT OPINION. Next thing you'll tell me is that it's a "sin" to have cerebral palsy. I'm not sure why or how you guys can take comfort in you selective, judgemental ways, but it certainly isn't very Jesus-like of you.

And to think people actually question my disdain for religion. Perhaps it's not the religion itself, but the people who use it to support their blatant bigotry.

So go ahead, take comfort in your opinion because afterall, you are just acting as God wants you too, right? You are just spreading the word of God.

I don't care what the propaganda says. Science has not proven a genetic link to homosexuality. It that were so there would be no cases of identical twins where one is homosexual, and the other is not. Second, even if science did prove a genetic link, God still condemns the behavior. I figure He may be smarter than you on such issues, and have His reasons.

 

[Eddie]

The thing that always pops up in my mind during these debates is "Why do we need the government to sanction any marriage?"

I got married in the church that I have been a member of all of my life. My mom and dad got married in the same church and my mother's parents got married in the the same church. When my grandparents were married there it was in part because my grandfather was marrying someone who was not a Catholic so they couldn't get married in his church. My grandmother's family boycotted the wedding because she was marrying an Italian.

Different churches have different standards as far as who can and can not get married within that church. Some churches won't marry someone who has been divorced, others won't marry someone who isn't a member of that church. Some churches will let gays marry and others won't. Some churches treat weddings as a business venture and will marry anybody that can pay for that service.

Some people get married in places other than churches. My wife flew down to a relative's wedding that took place in a mosque in Florida and I have friends that have been married in groves of trees, court rooms and even some county jails.

With so much diversity and so many different ways to get married why is it so important that the government issue a piece of paper to the married couple? Isn't the belief of the couple what really matters? Do a pair of devout Catholics feel better about the license that the state gives them or is it more important that the ceremony take place in accordance with their own beliefs?

I don't think that my own church would marry two men to each other. I don't care if some other church wants to marry men to men or women to women because I don't go to any other church. In the same vein, I don't care if the government wants to require two gay men or two gay women to buy a license to get married since I had to pay for a license when I got married. I would much rather see the government get out of the business of licensing our beliefs and let us each do what we believe is right within our own belief system.

 

[mrjarrell]

"Extremists"?!?!? "Puritan Marxists"?!?!? Your ignorance is hanging out. Again. Put it away...no one wants to see that.

I'd suggest you read an actual history of the puritans and not rely on 3rd grade history. I suggest you start with the Mayflower Compact and the history of the colony written by actual participants. They were collectivists who spent most of their time thieving from each other until the Compact was overturned and private property was allowed. Even in later decades, after they'd "softened" they were little more than superstitious thieves who used accusations of witchcraft to steal old women's property. Yeah, they were a great set of forefathers...thank goodness they died out. They would be strapping on bombs today.

 

[KDUBCR250]

The thing that always pops up in my mind during these debates is "Why do we need the government to sanction any marriage?"

+1

 

[PatriotPride]

To tell someone that they are a sinner for being their natural selves is a shameful behavior. IMO, it's more of a sin then the vary act that you accuse.

Why is it shameful? You've been conditioned to believe that it is not "Politically correct" and "hateful" to call homosexuality what it is---a SIN. We're all born sinful. No exceptions. Some may feel homosexual urges, others may feel the need to murder, others may feel the need to commit adultery, and still others may feel the need to gossip. The key is in what you do with your desires.
The argument is spinning in circles. On one side, you have people of faith who acknowledge that God has stated, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. On the other side, you have those that refuse to acknowledge even the existence of God, and choose to make their own set of "morals" to impose on others. There's no middle ground. I really don't see this argument going anywhere but down the toilet now. The wheels are spinning in the mud.

I'd also like to point out that the same passage that says homosexuality is a sin, also mentions that it is wrong to eat lobster. So, why are so many Christians eating shellfish?

Fail. If you're going to argue Biblical history, get the facts correct, THEN come debate. Seriously. You're embarassing yourself.


Really? Superstitious thieves? 3rd grade history? Gee. I'm touched that you took the time to write an intelligent and thoughtful post for once.


NHV, I don't mind continuing to debate and discuss Biblical history with you. Shoot me a PM and we can go from there. My forehead is starting to hurt from all the EPIC facepalms I've given myself after reading through this thread.

 

[PatriotPride]

The thing that always pops up in my mind during these debates is "Why do we need the government to sanction any marriage?"

I would much rather see the government get out of the business of licensing our beliefs and let us each do what we believe is right within out own belief system.

Exactly. THAT is what is so troubling about the pro-gay-marriage debacle. The same people who rail against government intervention regarding our firearms and rights are the FIRST people to call for and condone the government stepping in and telling us what to do in regards to gay-marriage. It's not even funny anymore. I can't even laugh at you anymore. Ok, maybe a little.

 

[Delmar]

Why is it shameful? You've been conditioned to believe that it is not "Politically correct" and "hateful" to call homosexuality what it is---a SIN. We're all born sinful. No exceptions. Some may feel homosexual urges, others may feel the need to murder, others may feel the need to commit adultery, and still others may feel the need to gossip. The key is in what you do with your desires.
The argument is spinning in circles. On one side, you have people of faith who acknowledge that God has stated, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. On the other side, you have those that refuse to acknowledge even the existence of God, and choose to make their own set of "morals" to impose on others. There's no middle ground. I really don't see this argument going anywhere but down the toilet now. The wheels are spinning in the mud.



Fail. If you're going to argue Biblical history, get the facts correct, THEN come debate. Seriously. You're embarassing yourself.


Really? Superstitious thieves? 3rd grade history? Gee. I'm touched that you took the time to write an intelligent and thoughtful post for once.


NHV, I don't mind continuing to debate and discuss Biblical history with you. Shoot me a PM and we can go from there. My forehead is starting to hurt from all the EPIC facepalms I've given myself after reading through this thread.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PatriotPride again"

 

[pistol pete]

Every civilazation in recorded history has allowed their destruction either by not preparing or just being lazy , which is this ? Tolerance is allowing others to do in a private setting what they wish so long as it does not interfear with pursuit of my happiness . I like to hold my wife"s hand while walking the canal . I do not want to see 2 guys or gals sitting along the canal making out .

 

[mrjarrell]

Ilya Shapiro, at Cato takes a look at the ruling and highlights the key points of the ruling (which most opponents here have still not read).

I haven’t even begun to dig into Judge Walker’s 138-page (!) opinion that strikes down Proposition 8 on both due process and equal protection grounds, but here are three key excerpts. First, the conclusion that government lacks a “rational basis” for preventing same-sex couples from marrying:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
​

Then the equal protection conclusion:

Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
​

And finally the due process conclusion:

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” [citation omitted] Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
​

In short, the court found none of the government’s asserted interests — including tradition, moving slowly on social change, and promoting different-sex parenting — to be “legitimate.” This is obviously a big deal and will be appealed – and no gay marriages will be allowed until the appellate process will have run its course (most likely up to the Supreme Court). Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.
Cato’s chairman Bob Levy, also co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights (which sponsored the suit) had this to say:

The principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide that so often defines issues in this country. Today, people from across that divide came together to fight a law that cut to the very core of our nation’s character. Prop. 8 attempted to deny people an indispensable right vested in all Americans. This Judge and this Court bravely confronted wrongful discrimination and came down on the right side – defending and enforcing equal protection, as demanded by the Constitution.
​

More at the source. This is all about checking the government, not the so-called "will of the people".

 

[Delmar]

Ilya Shapiro, at Cato takes a look at the ruling and highlights the key points of the ruling (which most opponents here have still not read).
More at the source. This is all about checking the government, not the so-called "will of the people".

Equal protection is a crock! Nobody is stopping a gay guy from marrying a woman. They just don't want to.

 

[Stickfight]

"Separate but equal"

You should put that on a sign and parade up and down Talbot street.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

No, I am pointing out that you have your history wrong. Never made any judgment on whether the practice was right or wrong. I said that the Greeks did not regard such relationships as marriage as they were for a limited duration. There is plenty of historical references to male/male relationships in ancient Greece, if I am slandering the Greek race by mentioning them then so is Aristotle so I'm not in too bad of company.

I dont deny there were some practices, but mainly that the practice was not as accepted as what is promoted.

Again, I must encourage you to find the post I had regarding Greeks, law and homosexuality.

However, I'll post some information which may benefit you brother.

Anti-gay slogans date back at least as far as Classical Greece 2500 years ago. These slogans have expressed numerous derogatory viewpoints against gays which have ranged from disrespectful to overtly insulting.

Took some time, but I found this Eddie.

 

[beararms1776]

To be quite honest I don't give a crap what they do as long as they're not pushing that agenda on my son or I to practice it. I've had people in a workplace say "how do you know if you have'nt tried it". How are you supposed to work around someone with an agenda for sex with males or females and weather they're asking for themselves or someone else? They can sodomize their minds while I continue to work and make myself and the Company money. You should only have to say no offense but no thanks 1 time. JMHO

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Every civilazation in recorded history has allowed their destruction either by not preparing or just being lazy , which is this ? Tolerance is allowing others to do in a private setting what they wish so long as it does not interfear with pursuit of my happiness . I like to hold my wife"s hand while walking the canal . I do not want to see 2 guys or gals sitting along the canal making out .

I agree, but imagine for those of us who have kids...


What are we to say when they see that crap? "Daddy why are those two men/women kissing?"

Nevermind the implications of this vice trait would pose for raising a healthy child. Children are quite impressionable, and people need to consider that they can either have children with 'THEY'RE VALUES' or the Values of MTV.

Homosexuals should not seek to infringe on the culture of the Majority.
Nevermind the insult it is to Christians. I cant imagine what it must be like, being a Christian in this Nation.

NHV, I don't mind continuing to debate and discuss Biblical history with you. Shoot me a PM and we can go from there. My forehead is starting to hurt from all the EPIC facepalms I've given myself after reading through this thread.

I would not mind it at all. My PM box has a habit of getting full very quickly. I do have a group where we can speak, and I believe you are a member.

The fail of this argument is definitely epic. I wonder when people will realize that the whole liberal sharade of "liberty" always costs in other capacities, promotes vice etc.

I believe there is a passage in the Bible where it states those who accept me, will be blessed, perhaps this is obvious with's America's self destruction.

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

Why do you or your Brother NEED to have a State Sanctioned marriage?


MY WIFE AND I, dont believe the State ought to have THAT power, and we wont support such measures.

Furthermore, If Pro-creation is the desire, then homosexuality is a choice.

There are many issues both legal and emotional that go with marriage. As an atheist I can't get married in a church, that would go against what I believe and would make me a hypocrite. On top of divorce and all the things that go along with it, I don't see how you wouldn't want some sanction on your marriage. I could flip this question right around on you and ask why you need a church to be married. You would obviously give me a bunch of religious reasons.

With a country that has a divorce rate of 50% or higher among us heterosexuals, it should be obvious why there are certain legalities to being married.

I don't understand why people like you don't want people like me to be able to enjoy marriage in our own way. I saw another post where someone said "How would I explain to my children two men/women kissing?" Well, that is part of parenting! Like I said, I know a few people who grew up with homosexual parents, and they are all stable and happy people. They are all straight, too.

You really shouldn't be so offended with two people in love. I would ask all the people opposed to homosexuality what they would do if they found out one of their children has been gay. But I doubt I'd get a rational response.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

There are many issues both legal and emotional that go with marriage.

But nothing traditional ?

I could flip this question right around on you and ask why you need a church to be married. You would obviously give me a bunch of religious reasons.

Well, I personally dont. I dont need a Govt official, or some Churchanity preacher to endorse my sanctity, when both are so full of crap.

However, again, this is a traditional thing, Religion and Marriage go back to when man was still squating in caves.

I dont think there is a single religion which does endorse homosexuality. Could be interesting to read.

With a country that has a divorce rate of 50% or higher among us heterosexuals, it should be obvious why there are certain legalities to being married.

Materialism is not enough to support, IMO.

I don't understand why people like you don't want people like me to be able to enjoy marriage in our own way. I saw another post where someone said "How would I explain to my children two men/women kissing?" Well, that is part of parenting! Like I said, I know a few people who grew up with homosexual parents, and they are all stable and happy people. They are all straight, too.

I want everyone to be happy, but not at the expense of another. This is essentially my entire basis of being in my political endevors.

I wonder how happy those guys were in HS, explaining to they're guy friends about both daddies, or something else.

This is a clash of values and opinions, too. What may be OK, for another, wont be OK for someone else.

It's appearant that someone will be infringed, will it be the minority or the majority populous?

I would ask all the people opposed to homosexuality what they would do if they found out one of their children has been gay. But I doubt I'd get a rational response.

How can one be, something they know nothing of, not exposed to?

I'd ask, if the child is gay, would he/she understand that they're choice could lead to genetic deadend, and would they have the ability to decide that LIFE is greater than the self and take self sacrifice to heart? <------ Would they bare children? of they're own DNA.

And if they made the right choice, would they then be able to understand the importance of the presence of Daddy or Mommy, and the combination?

It takes a Man to be a Dad, and raise a Man, just as it takes a Women to be a Mother and raise a Women.

And then again, accept that they must self sacrifice for the greater good?