CA SC to Hear Prop 8 Arguments

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Let’s tear down every major institution that we have in order to accommodate them…Ha ha

We did it for interracial couples and for females who wanted to work and be public officials and for the retarded who wanted to not be considered insane and for… etc… etc…[/quote]

No, but that’s different. Stop being racist/sexist/whatever. Let’s not move forward, that’s not what humanity is all about. Let’s go back to the dark ages and burn witches and execute all teh gayz.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It’s just a matter of you wanting to draw a line further down the field that I and most of the rest of my country do. Can you understand that?

No probably not…That’s okay though.[/quote]

Eventually the silent majority will end the strictures against gay people.

It’s just another case of consenting adults being treated like second class citizens because they are different or make different choices.

You’d think we’d figure this out eventually…

Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?

[quote]pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Maybe it’s an issue he feels strongly about, that affects him personally. Maybe you’d do the same thing if someone told you that you couldn’t marry the wanted to.

To use your own words, he lost, he should get over it. It was put to public vote in many states and lost in all of them, big time. Only where the judicial branch chose to legislate from the bench, is it accessible.

It’s really pretty much a dead horse, and he keeps beating it.[/quote]

Youre preaching to the choir!!!

Amen and halleluyah!!!

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Let’s tear down every major institution that we have in order to accommodate them…Ha ha

We did it for interracial couples and for females who wanted to work and be public officials and for the retarded who wanted to not be considered insane and for… etc… etc…

No, but that’s different. Stop being racist/sexist/whatever. Let’s not move forward, that’s not what humanity is all about. Let’s go back to the dark ages and burn witches and execute all teh gayz.[/quote]

Why does giving gays “special rights” have to be moving forward?

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?[/quote]

Such ignorance.

Your post could also have read “marrige in 1/3 of the States prohibited interracial marriage until activist judges said otherwise…Why can’t blacks and whites accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?”

We are a better country because of those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court, who told the majority to sit down and shut the fuck up when it came to discriminating against people because of some personal characteristic or quality they possessed.

The above example can be modified to fit other situations as well.

I love how people are so hypnotized about the idea that somehow, if the majority votes for it, it MUST stand, no exceptions.

The majority has often been wrong.

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?

Such ignorance.

Your post could also have read “marrige in 1/3 of the States prohibited interracial marriage until activist judges said otherwise…Why can’t blacks and whites accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?”

We are a better country because of those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court, who told the majority to sit down and shut the fuck up when it came to discriminating against people because of some personal characteristic or quality they possessed.

The above example can be modified to fit other situations as well.

I love how people are so hypnotized about the idea that somehow, if the majority votes for it, it MUST stand, no exceptions.

The majority has often been wrong.[/quote]

Look im black, but if interracial marriage was made law that way then it was the wrong way to do it. If its wrong over here its wrong over there.

So you think it would have been better for the miscegenation laws to stay on the books, than for activist judges to rule that it was unconstitutional to refuse blacks the right to marry whites?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If someone counters the gay argument that means that they actually like it…Ha ha. That tactic is used to silence all critics, smart move but it won’t work.
[/quote]

Actually, I haven’t accused anyone but you of being a closet gay. People like Thunderbolt and PRCalDude seem sincere, if misguided.

But you give me a different vibe. Your constant presence in the gay threads and your comments make me suspect that you “protest too much”. I think you may be hiding something about your own sexuality.

Not that I’m judging you for it. I was in the closet for years myself, and some never do come out.

[quote]clip11 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?

Such ignorance.

Your post could also have read “marrige in 1/3 of the States prohibited interracial marriage until activist judges said otherwise…Why can’t blacks and whites accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?”

We are a better country because of those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court, who told the majority to sit down and shut the fuck up when it came to discriminating against people because of some personal characteristic or quality they possessed.

The above example can be modified to fit other situations as well.

I love how people are so hypnotized about the idea that somehow, if the majority votes for it, it MUST stand, no exceptions.

The majority has often been wrong.

Look im black, but if interracial marriage was made law that way then it was the wrong way to do it. If its wrong over here its wrong over there.
[/quote]

You really think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that struck down discrimination on account of peoples’ race?

What about how the Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? If it wasn’t for the Court’s “activist” approach, you may have gone to an all-black school because the white majority thought you were inferior and didn’t want you associating with their kids.

Do you really still feel that if the majority votes for it, it must stand? I find that extremely confusing, especially coming from a black person (i’m generally confused as to why black’s voted in overwhelming support for Prop 8).

The state has no business telling people who they can create a contract with. There should also be no state derived benefits from said contract. Churches should decide who can marry in their congregation. end of problem.

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?

Such ignorance.

Your post could also have read “marrige in 1/3 of the States prohibited interracial marriage until activist judges said otherwise…Why can’t blacks and whites accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?”

We are a better country because of those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court, who told the majority to sit down and shut the fuck up when it came to discriminating against people because of some personal characteristic or quality they possessed.

The above example can be modified to fit other situations as well.

I love how people are so hypnotized about the idea that somehow, if the majority votes for it, it MUST stand, no exceptions.

The majority has often been wrong.

Look im black, but if interracial marriage was made law that way then it was the wrong way to do it. If its wrong over here its wrong over there.

You really think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that struck down discrimination on account of peoples’ race?

What about how the Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? If it wasn’t for the Court’s “activist” approach, you may have gone to an all-black school because the white majority thought you were inferior and didn’t want you associating with their kids.

Do you really still feel that if the majority votes for it, it must stand? I find that extremely confusing, especially coming from a black person (i’m generally confused as to why black’s voted in overwhelming support for Prop 8).[/quote]

I went to an all black school anyways. But this isnt about that its about giving gays the right to marry. I hate it when ppl try to draw a comparison between the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and the gay movement of today. Gay living is a lifestyle choice that they would like to make everyone else accept. Gays arent kept out of schools because theyre gay we were because we’re black. Gays can hide their preference i cant hide my skin color. And as for the interracial marriage deal, most ppl marry inside their race anyways so that wasnt some big “breakthrough”.

[quote]clip11 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?

Such ignorance.

Your post could also have read “marrige in 1/3 of the States prohibited interracial marriage until activist judges said otherwise…Why can’t blacks and whites accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?”

We are a better country because of those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court, who told the majority to sit down and shut the fuck up when it came to discriminating against people because of some personal characteristic or quality they possessed.

The above example can be modified to fit other situations as well.

I love how people are so hypnotized about the idea that somehow, if the majority votes for it, it MUST stand, no exceptions.

The majority has often been wrong.

Look im black, but if interracial marriage was made law that way then it was the wrong way to do it. If its wrong over here its wrong over there.

You really think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that struck down discrimination on account of peoples’ race?

What about how the Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? If it wasn’t for the Court’s “activist” approach, you may have gone to an all-black school because the white majority thought you were inferior and didn’t want you associating with their kids.

Do you really still feel that if the majority votes for it, it must stand? I find that extremely confusing, especially coming from a black person (i’m generally confused as to why black’s voted in overwhelming support for Prop 8).

I went to an all black school anyways. But this isnt about that its about giving gays the right to marry. I hate it when ppl try to draw a comparison between the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and the gay movement of today. Gay living is a lifestyle choice that they would like to make everyone else accept. Gays arent kept out of schools because theyre gay we were because we’re black. Gays can hide their preference i cant hide my skin color. And as for the interracial marriage deal, most ppl marry inside their race anyways so that wasnt some big “breakthrough”.

[/quote]

As for your last point, I believe roughly ONE THIRD of the states had laws banning interracial marriage.

It was a pretty big breakthrough.

[quote]clip11 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Marriage in CA was originally between a man and a woman until actvist judges said otherwise. Then the people voted in prop 8 to put things back were they belong. How they should be.

Why cant gays accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?

Such ignorance.

Your post could also have read “marrige in 1/3 of the States prohibited interracial marriage until activist judges said otherwise…Why can’t blacks and whites accept that and go somewhere and sit down and shut up?”

We are a better country because of those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court, who told the majority to sit down and shut the fuck up when it came to discriminating against people because of some personal characteristic or quality they possessed.

The above example can be modified to fit other situations as well.

I love how people are so hypnotized about the idea that somehow, if the majority votes for it, it MUST stand, no exceptions.

The majority has often been wrong.

Look im black, but if interracial marriage was made law that way then it was the wrong way to do it. If its wrong over here its wrong over there.

You really think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that struck down discrimination on account of peoples’ race?

What about how the Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? If it wasn’t for the Court’s “activist” approach, you may have gone to an all-black school because the white majority thought you were inferior and didn’t want you associating with their kids.

Do you really still feel that if the majority votes for it, it must stand? I find that extremely confusing, especially coming from a black person (i’m generally confused as to why black’s voted in overwhelming support for Prop 8).

I went to an all black school anyways. But this isnt about that its about giving gays the right to marry. I hate it when ppl try to draw a comparison between the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and the gay movement of today. Gay living is a lifestyle choice that they would like to make everyone else accept. Gays arent kept out of schools because theyre gay we were because we’re black. Gays can hide their preference i cant hide my skin color. And as for the interracial marriage deal, most ppl marry inside their race anyways so that wasnt some big “breakthrough”.

[/quote]

You hate it because it dramatically weakens your argument.
You can argue all you want about how there is no correlation; common sense says otherwise.

This is yet again a case of the majority making up reason after reason as to why we should still discriminate.

As for your last point, I believe one third of states banned interracial marriage before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to do so. It was indeed “some big breakthrough.”

[quote]Ouiser wrote:
The state has no business telling people who they can create a contract with. There should also be no state derived benefits from said contract. Churches should decide who can marry in their congregation. end of problem.
[/quote]

Hospital visitation, medical decisions, power of attorney? There’s a lot to consider there.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Ouiser wrote:
The state has no business telling people who they can create a contract with. There should also be no state derived benefits from said contract. Churches should decide who can marry in their congregation. end of problem.

Hospital visitation, medical decisions, power of attorney? There’s a lot to consider there.[/quote]

Those things could be granted in the contract.

True, but federal benefits (social security, taxes, etc.) cannot be granted contractually. And without those benefits, marriage loses some of the “carrot” which fosters social stability.