Sometimes you scare me Lost

Just kiddin, we are all equal under the sun. I don't even know what prop 8 is



mal

So will churches be forced to marry people against there religions or lose there tax exempt statis or worse?

Lost said:

For peeps that don't know a loco moco is a hawaiian breaKFAST..

Click to expand...

OK lets not go too far! After all spam is not allowed at THC farmer ....Right? LOL!

Well not sure why gay are seeking a religious right not a civil right. When most all religions don't support homosexual behavior unless motivated by money. So why seek something that is so against you just to prove you can it will not add to the acceptance of gays in any way just drive a bigger wedge in with the groups against you.

This is just a yay thread for prop8 being overturned

Any negative comments will be deleted!

Thank you MSL

Lost said:

Unconstitutional!!! YEEEAAA!!!

Click to expand...

I SO have wanted to discuss this but assumed it was verboten here.

Now, what's really interesting about this is that the decision was made in a FEDERAL court. So, what happens to the federal DoMA (Defense of Marriage Act)? It, too, is unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it, at least not successfully to this point. Perhaps this will be the impetus.

Did you read any of the judge's opinions in the ruling? 136 pages, wow!

Raoul said:

Not hatred, don't really care about gays, straights or anyone else for a matter of fact. Apples to oranges to whom? So if people whine like selfish children their voices should be heard over the majority? The point being is that the California state constitution allows the public to vote on these measures for approval or denial. Is was voted on and denied. It will be interesting to see how the supreme court votes on this measure because it may say that state rights are no longer acknowledged by the federal government. I'm not sure if the 14th amendment protects marriage, guess we will find out. I'm more concerned about the constitutional legality of the situation than some group wanting to be put in a lower tax bracket and benefit from additional entitlement programs. There are four states I think that voted with majority to recognize gay marriage and that is great.

Click to expand...

This is indeed in part a states' rights issue. However, once we begin to allow any state to infringe upon the basic human rights of any group that has done nothing wrong, the door is opened for more rights to go by the wayside. The ability and right to name one's next of kin is a very basic right, named in the Bill of Rights as one of the pursuits of happiness (marriage isn't named, the pursuit of happiness is).

If you wish to boil this down to money, that's your prerogative. But before you do so, may I suggest you try to put yourself in the shoes of so many who have lost a loved one, someone they would have named next of kin. Ask what happens in hospitals when you tell them, "We're married." Man & woman saying that they don't bat an eyelash or ask a second question. Same-sex couples..? Uh uh, you've got to be ready with your documentation saying you're legally 'civilly unified'. No one else, no other group is forced to say this.

Proposition 8 is EXACTLY like this country's past anti-miscegenation laws (laws that prevented intermarriage between races). Those needed striking down, even if they were in a state's constitution. By the way, California was the first state to strike its anti-miscegenation laws. And then we voted in Prop 8, ugh.

In any event, in my opinion we must have the balance of law or 'democracy' can become 'mob rule', and mob rules don't give a flying fuck about anybody's rights.

Raoul said:

I understand the judge's opinion on the law, but marriage has never been defined as a right previously. I see your point though. I guess the advantage given to those by the government because of marriage makes it unfair, such as tax breaks. If the government at a local and federal levels wants to grant special privileges for being married, then they should not discriminate. I can agree with that. I guess my real issue is underlying, that marriage should be a private contract between two parties and given no special governmental privileges, but that is another issue. I think I have changed my position.

Click to expand...

Support that assertion, that is bolded.

The rest of it, well, we are not going to get the option to put marriage back into the exclusive realm of religion, it is now a state contract. As such, ALL have a right to entertain entering into such a contract, even convicted criminals! And those are people who have done wrong.

There's no way that genie is going to be stuffed back into the bottle. At least, not until the US government has gone the way of the Romans.

markscastle said:

So will churches be forced to marry people against there religions or lose there tax exempt statis or worse?

Click to expand...

Were they forced to marry anyone previously? No, I don't think so. Why would it change now?

I think many churches, especially the mega-churches, should lose tax exempt status.

And instead of waiting til tomorrow to present Judge Vaughn with written arguments, the pro-Prop 8 crowd has filed an appeal directly with the 9th Circuit.

By LISA LEFF and PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writers Lisa Leff And Paul Elias, Associated Press Writers – 4 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – Supporters of California's gay marriage ban have filed an appeal of a federal judge's ruling striking down the voter-approved law.

The appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday was expected, as lawyers on both sides of the legal battle repeatedly vowed to carry the fight to a higher court if they lost.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco overturned California's Proposition 8, which restricts a marriage to one man and one woman.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn ruled the law violates federal equal protections and due process laws.

The 9th Circuit court has no deadlines to hear the case, which will be randomly assigned to a three-judge panel.

Click to expand...

I see you are mostly nice people!

Dr.stickerdick said:

I see you are mostly hettero-phobes,,,,, what biggots

Click to expand...

Where the hell did that come from? lol

FRee up the gay love! More love on earth period!

whiteflower420 said:

FRee up the gay love! More love on earth period!

Click to expand...

I don't think prop 8 banned any love.... lmao

mrdizzle said:

not when that majority vote is unconstitutional, no majority can strip a minority of a constitution right, which is why the judge ruled to remove the ban. Its not even close to the same thing as a prop 215 case. Lets lay off the Glen beck people

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is why this idea of "democracy" is a failed concept. Why do we still continue to teach it and push it? Its 51% outnumbering the other 49% and straight strippin rights because their mob is stronger. Not representative by any means.

MR.Budworthy said:

Well not sure why gay are seeking a religious right not a civil right. When most all religions don't support homosexual behavior unless motivated by money. So why seek something that is so against you just to prove you can it will not add to the acceptance of gays in any way just drive a bigger wedge in with the groups against you.

Click to expand...

Its not just about religous views, many gays obviously are not religous, its about equality. Period. No reason one person should be allowed to do something, and because of ignorance another is not. IGNORANCE. Also on a side note, being able to marry with allow many gay families with children etc to be able to get health insurance, benefits, etc FOR THEIR FAMILY!!! These are not allowed to them because they can not legally marry.

Did anyone see the recent long term study they did on Lesbians and being moms? They did like a 20yr study on lesbian parents, their children, how their children developed, educational breakdown, grades, behavior, etc....and guess what....the lesbians' children outshined the straight families children clear across the board.... not saying we should all be lesbians and raise families, but again talk about ignorance on behalf on the non-scientific community. Same thing with the neuro scans that have shown distinct neural differences (that can only be biological/genetic) between straight and homosexual individuals. The science is there, and these morons are still preaching about God not loving their "life" choice....

And while I'm at it, let me put it like this....I have been very politically involved in the pro pot movement for the last decade. This political activity has caused me to cross paths with LGBT community numerous times, and believe you me, they play a great roll in political support for MMJ/Legalization. I have worked many a gay pride fest for MMJ cause, and those gays are much more reliable supporters across the board than most stoners that come up at pot events. I am not gay (i love my ladies...) but i have marched side by side with them for some time and this announcement of Prop 8 being overturned is huge...

Tell it how it is TG!!

true grit said:

Its not just about religous views, many gays obviously are not religous, its about equality. Period.

Click to expand...

That's not the crux of his biscuit. His biscuit is about marriage being purely a religious construct. At one time it was. It no longer is, and *here* is the rub that the religious-minded, "one man, one woman" types don't seem to grasp--marriage is now a legal contract. As such, NO ONE can be denied ability to enter into said contract as long as it's otherwise legal (i.e. they're at age of consent, don't violate other laws). You cannot deny someone who has done no wrong the ability to enter into any legal contract, and thusly you cannot deny the ability to enter into the legal contract of marriage.

I've always wondered why a death row inmate can marry with no questions asked, no redress against his presumed right to do so. Yet if someone loves someone of the same sex, no dice.

That said, civil unions are not, at this time, an acceptable alternative. See my post above.

I hold with an absolute firmness that this is equal, on a legal basis, with mixed-race marriage and the laws that used to prohibit it.

It is now that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1994 be addressed and removed from federal law.

Lost, TG, SM, MrD, Boss, cEBE . . . and all you other lovers of human rights . . . i'm proud to stand beside you and celebrate.

our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve equality under the law. they have for a very long time.

let the marriages begin!







Papa

Sea- I most def agree bro!! I want them to have equal access to the contract of marriage so they can entitled everything that comes with that like any other couple...more the legal benefits that accompany...as to me. I'm not the marrying type but I can most definitely see the benefits of marriage that any m/f couple to capitolize on and these folks can not. Agreed, time for some change on Fed level....

What a month for the Fed- Prop 8 overturned and the VA announcing it will support vets with MMJ recs....hmm.....

Papa- you too bro, pretty big victory for the LGBT community there!

Great to see where this thread went!

Everyone rocks!

MSL

Thats great. Really. I just dont get the legislation of morality.

Cheyenne - The constitution is there because the masses are stupid. As I said before, would you allow Alabama to vote slavery back in?

I don't interpret cheyenne to mean his/her comment that way. I take it to mean that we have no business trying to legislate morality, which immediately brings to mind the concept of victimless crimes. Prostitution? Drug use (at least soft drugs), sodomy and other sexual laws that ostensibly protect adults from each other, but are in fact simply a means by which one group enforces their morals upon another (theocracy). Perhaps even bigamy/polygamy.

In fact, as I've examined the issue, while bigamy/polygamy don't quite fit into our social structure or culture, they certainly fit for some, and I see no real reason why it should be illegal. I say that if multiple adults, of their right minds and without coercion, should find that they are happier in such a relationship, there is no real harm to society otherwise, and so there should be no law against it.

Let the shooting begin! Ask me if I want to share *my* husband, and you will receive a more-than-firm NO. It doesn't work for me. But if it works for you..? As long as you're not trying to draw me into it, or get my husband into it, ain't no skin offa my nose.

Sorry for the ramble.