patrick.net

California voters correctly voted to amend CA’s Constitution. They did it legally as directed by the CA Constitution. This is nothing other than another example of a Federal Judge overruling the legal mandate, as defined by California law, of the people.

Rights can't be voted away by a majority, without a compelling real-world rational basis, like not giving drivers licenses to people who can't see.

Rights are rights, and the right to a life partnership is a fundamental human right.

The case was decided by the judge largely/partially on the rational basis test, one that I also thought was apropos to counter the Prop 8 interest group squarely on their bullshit beliefs that were the entirety of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

This case is a great litmus test for conservatives, where they have to walk their talk about freedom. What about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't you guys understand?

marcus says

I understand the broader point is sort of asking the culture and the country to officially acknowledge a higher level of acceptance. But hey, at least the trend is good. I would just give it time and save the fight for civil unions granting all the rights of marriage in all states, a more winnable fight.

The major problem with this is that the only license that is offered by the States that offer all of the rights, obligations, and privileges of full status relationships is a "Marriage License" in our country. Another major problem from everyone who argues that we gays should go for "civil unions" and that the government should be issuing "civil union" licenses in place of "Marriage Licenses" is that the reality exists that the only license that offers the equivalent degree of legal status is a Marriage License in the USA. And anyone who thinks that heterosexual couples will turn their Marriage Licenses in to their State in exchange for a Civil Union License in the USA isn't thinking this through. One person on here said that he'd exchange his Marriage License for a Civil Union License. I wonder how his wife feels about that?

Civil Unions were created in States specifically as an alternate form of certifying relationships that are "marriage-like" but not quite marriage. And they don't come with all of the same rights, obligations, and privileges that Marriage Licenses do. They are instruments for creating a second class status to same sex unions, and nothing more, in US law as it exists today.

Therefore, the best solution is that the heterosexuals who have Marriage Licenses keep them and just allow same sex couplse to get Marriage Licenses. It's much more realistic than asking heterosexual couples to turn in their Marriage Licenses to be issued a new Civil Union License in its place. And it's the best way to ensure that same sex married couples receive the same obligations, privileges, and rights as opposite sex married couples do since all of the laws around "civil union/marriage" use the word marriage in them.

So, just to recap, marriage in US law is what they call "civil union" in other countries. Marriage is the legal term for that relationship in the USA. It's not a religious term when used by the State. In our country Civil Unions do not in any way get close to offering the rights, obligations, and privileges of a Legal Marriage in the USA.

Separate is not equal.

simchaland says

n our country Civil Unions do not in any way get close to offering the rights, obligations, and privileges of a Legal Marriage in the USA.

Vermont now has same sex marriage, but for 10 years it first had civil unions that as far as I know did give the same rights as marriage.

By the way, I did not say that hetero couples should turn in their marriage licenses, that was a previous post. In fact I said it's not going to happen. It's not illogical in my view to have civil unions side by side with marriages, even if they are essentially the same. The reason for it is placating the people who want to say "marraige is for man and woman," supposedly on religious grounds. We all know that the real reason is they are using their religion for hating (Jesus would not approve), which isn't new.

It's surprising the success that they've had fighting it. I'm just saying that if for example California had done what Vermont did ( initially) using the term civil union (even if redundant to marriage, but not unequal except in name), then the idiots would not have been able to wage the fight that they did.

It takes away the whole "what did the bible mean by the word marriage ?" argument.

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks.

Bap33 says

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks

Have they been removed ? Are you talking about rocket launchers, machine guns, bazookas, that sort to of thing?

How can any sane person argue that the line shouldn't be drawn somewhere? There are even international laws on what armies can do.

mikey says

Generally speaking, marriage is basically a religious institution. Because of the constitutional separation of church and state, this would imply that, technically, all marriages would be deemed civil unions and recognised as such by the secular nature of the government.

You got it! So I don't see the gripe, "Marriage" is a religious thing pure and simple.
The paper you get at the court house, just gives your wife rights to all of your crap after she wears you down and whittles you to an early grave.

Re: the polygamy thing...

Mormons don't practice polygamy. Fundamentalist Mormons do - they branched off from the Mormon religion when Utah was asking for the US army to help protect them from intruders (such as the native indians). The US govt told them that they'd have to abide by US laws, including no polygamy. FLDS members believed that the epiphany that the head of the church - called a prophet - had wasn't honest & true so they kept on having multiple marriages.

Polygamy offers people the opportunity to live dishonestly, without responsibility to society in general. Until this whole fiasco with Warren Jeffs becoming the self-appointed prophet and running a dictatorship - including disallowing people to speak amongst themselves at all after he excommunicated prominent members who disagreed with him - their lifestyle was low key. People didn't know what was happening out there in the middle of the desert.

One wife is the legally married wife. She pops out a dozen or so kids. The next wife is chosen by the prophet and the husband - and she pops out a dozen or so kids. She also claims not to know who the father is and goes on welfare. As does the next wife. and so on. They often live on the border of Utah & Arizona, so one man can have wives collecting welfare in both states. Less coverups they have to do. They don't pay property taxes because the trust owns the land, so they're drawing benefits without paying in.

They cast out the young men so that there will be more wives for the old guys - and I do mean old. These young men, called lost boys, have no education beyond elementary or junior high school, no skills, no money, no home. They're forced to leave everything that they know. Not just that - the girls are forced to marry as young as 14 to old men they've never actually met.

Because they don't own the land they must pay privately to build the home that they live in, plus pay a huge-ass amount of tithing (hundreds per month) to the prophet who lives high on the hog. While they have no tv, radio, no red cars... the prophet had multiple laptops. The houses that they build are sometimes reassigned by the prophet so that the guy who built it isn't the guy who lives in it - meaning that they have no homestead rights.

People are told where they'll live, what they'll do, and how they'll do it. If they live away from the prophet's hometown, he can call and tell them to sell their house, give him the profits and move to Colorado City/Hildale to live in a substandard place that he gives to them. They must ask the prophet where they can work, if they can work (if they're a woman), and then he takes some of the money.

It's an oppresive society that's terrifying, and isn't reflective of the lifestyle lived by other Mormons. But there are some commonalities, because the church invades members lives and tells them what to do in many instances (such as that they should fight against same-sex marriage).

Sorry to be long winded - but the polygamist society is a closed society with high instances of domestic abuse, substance abuse, and birth defects due to inbreeding. One can't understand it until they've seen it and known people whose lives are torn apart as they blindly follow a mentally ill man who's self-appointed as leader.

RayAmerica may be a little confused about the church being forced to hire married or unmarried gays. It is a simple fact that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as gender, race, religion, national origin, marrital status, or hairstyle is prohibited. You can have the crap sued out of you if you do discriminate. Furthermore, our founding fathers directed that we are entitled to freedom of religion; however, they also stated we also have freedom FROM religion. So in other words, just because a pious majority want to force a minority to accept there religious doctorine then it is indeed unconstitutional. Any reasonably fair, thoughtful person can see that. People can and do all sorts of things that we my find immoral or disturbing. But as long as they aren't victimizing someone else what's it to you? And who are we to judge what things should make us happy? Just mind your own business and live your own life. Now I ask you, ain't that America?

deanrite says

Now I ask you, ain’t that America?

yes. but not ray'samerica.

Bap33 says

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks.

Gun control laws are getting thrown out left and right thanks to the explicit protection to keep and bear arms as the Conservative majority prefers to read the 2nd Amendment (plus the Lopez decision from the 90s that threw out Federal gun-free zones near schools as abusing the Commerce Clause).

But what I said was:

"Rights can’t be voted away by a majority, without a compelling real-world rational basis"

For guns, this basically comes down to public safety and undue burden tests.

As a libertarian I think gun control laws are bandaids on a bigger problem, though I have no problem with trigger lock, munitions tagging, licensing restrictions for sales of more dangerous guns, etc.

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment cluster of rights is pretty limited and would be adequately served by eg. the government licensing shooting ranges where gun owners could keep and play with their military-grade guns to their heart's content.

Beyond the 2nd Amendment, I believe there is a common law right of free access to weapons to defend you and yours, something NOT mentioned in the 2nd Amendment at all. However, the weapons of this right are more on the order of sport rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols, not military-grade automatic weapons.

Troy says

Bap33 says

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks.

Gun control laws are getting thrown out left and right thanks to the explicit protection to keep and bear arms as the Conservative majority prefers to read the 2nd Amendment (plus the Lopez decision from the 90s that threw out Federal gun-free zones near schools as abusing the Commerce Clause).
But what I said was:
“Rights can’t be voted away by a majority, without a compelling real-world rational basis”
For guns, this basically comes down to public safety and undue burden tests.
As a libertarian I think gun control laws are bandaids on a bigger problem, though I have no problem with trigger lock, munitions tagging, licensing restrictions for sales of more dangerous guns, etc.
Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment cluster of rights is pretty limited and would be adequately served by eg. the government licensing shooting ranges where gun owners could keep and play with their military-grade guns to their heart’s content.
Beyond the 2nd Amendment, I believe there is a common law right of free access to weapons to defend you and yours, something NOT mentioned in the 2nd Amendment at all. However, the weapons of this right are more on the order of sport rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols, not military-grade automatic weapons.

Troy, calling yourself a libertarian is like the pope calling himself a protestant. It seems you forget what the first American militias were. They were people, who decided to take up arms against their government. As such, it only makes sense that citizens have weaponry equal to any potential abuse of power, including all powers that be. Name any abuser of power over the years that could not have been stopped if the citizenry had the means to defend themselves against that power. The right to defend against abuse of power is what the 2nd Amendment sought to guarantee. Not the right to own a bolt action rifle while the dictators goons outside point assault weapons, tear gas grenades and rocket launchers at you.

We may never see the day that the goons come for you, but if they know you are as heavily armed as they are, it is even less likely to ever happen. *Disclaimer: I do not advocate taking arms up against any government, especially ours.

now there are allegations that the judge may be gay:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50065222-76/gay-walker-judge-case.html.csp
“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.
----------------------
so people are thinking he might be biased? What does his sexual orientation have to do with it? with that thinking, he'd be biased if he were heterosexual. In fact, he should be asexual in order to be completely unbiased.

elliemae says

now there are allegations that the judge may be gay:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50065222-76/gay-walker-judge-case.html.csp

“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.

———————-

so people are thinking he might be biased? What does his sexual orientation have to do with it? with that thinking, he’d be biased if he were heterosexual. In fact, he should be asexual in order to be completely unbiased.

Evidently they don't see the issue being one of equal protection under the law. No, it's all about adding "gay marriage" to the constitution. That is such twisted BS. As if the 51% of the people who voted for Prop 8 have the right to discriminate against those who don't subscribe to their religious doctrine?

It's pretty sad that so many of us can't even follow simple logic and reason. Instead, we subscribe to dogma and exclusionary thinking to cover our own weak-minded and pathetic limitations.

We've been on this plant for thousands of years and we still want to discriminate and keep other people down. Call me an optimist, but I believe the human race can do better.

Personally, I would be fine with the government getting out of the business of marrying anyone. Everyone gets a civil union, only a church can truly "marry" anyone. Then marriage is left to the church entirely, but the state does not participate. All marriages are annulled and only civil unions are granted. What a concept, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

elliemae says

now there are allegations that the judge may be gay:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50065222-76/gay-walker-judge-case.html.csp
“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.
———————-
so people are thinking he might be biased? What does his sexual orientation have to do with it? with that thinking, he’d be biased if he were heterosexual. In fact, he should be asexual in order to be completely unbiased.

The judge being gays is about the same as blacks voting for Obama. Heterosexuals are split on the right of gays being married, but homosexuals are 99.99999% for it, to have a gay judge decide this matter and not think it had an effect on the outcome is at the least very suspect.

Personally I could care less about the whole issue and I think we have more important things in this country that need attention.

thunderlips11 says

If Heather has two daddies and a mom, then she still has two parents if one dies, and has all financial, emotional, etc. stability that goes with two parents, no?

Honestly, I have no problem with this so long as all parties involved are consenting adults who have a real interest in raising the children and supporting the family. Love and hard work is what keeps a family together, no matter the configuration.

AdHominem says

The right to defend against abuse of power is what the 2nd Amendment sought to guarantee. Not the right to own a bolt action rifle while the dictators goons outside point assault weapons, tear gas grenades and rocket launchers at you.

Actually I think the 2nd Amendment is a bit more subtle than that but I don't want to get into that other than to say any rebellion worth the name will in fact have full access to all the arms it can shoot, cf. 1861-65, and will fail, cf 1861-65 (unless it has Right on its side, but even that may not be enough).

Above I said bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and pistols were a common-law right of being a responsible citizen and have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment's protections.

Deciding gun rights on any 2nd Amendment basis is silly since I think the 9th covers all our freedoms well enough -- the state has to show gun contorl laws pass rational basis and undue burden tests.

Limiting 2nd Amendment rights to places where exercise of them is safe -- licensed gun ranges -- is good enough for me. Everyone should have the opportunity to become proficient at military-grade hardware. That's what the 2nd Amendment's KABA was all about IMO.

sir .. in the real world I can not carry my loaded weapon in my truck. I can not carry my loaded weapon on my side. All of these restrictions were placed on me by removing my rights.

Since we are at the legal portion ... what is the preferred method used by lawyers and judges to prove someone is a practicing deviant, and that the level of deviantness is at a level high enough to allow for inclusion under this law? Anyone have a link to that?

You see ... bazookas and machine guns are "levels" of arms. You suggest there are legally viewed acceptable levels. Lets see the deviant version of acceptable levels, please.

rpanic01 says

The judge being gays is about the same as blacks voting for Obama

This is assuming that all black people voted for Obama. Forgive me if I generalize, but I do believe that black people are all individuals who have the ability to think for themselves. As do gays & lesbians.

I believe that a judge can be unbiased, regardless of his sexual orientation. If not, then heterosexual judges should never be allowed to hear cases involving gay litigants. Female judges should not be allowed to hear cases involving male litigants, nor should male judges hear female litigants. Disputes over pets should only be heard by pet owning judges. Disputes over trailer homes should only be heard by judges who live in trailer parks.

Seriously, a gay judge presiding over such an issue would probably be less inclined to act in a biased manner, because he would go to great lengths to ensure his impartiality.

Bap33,....Are you talkin to me??
(just kidding, sort of. A reference to the movie Taxi driver which btw I should see again. It's been 30 years)

This is a complicated issue, that I am not all that competent to address other than from a very simplistic common sense level. I heard an interesting question posed a while back, I think by Bill Maher. He was referring to the Tea Party types who brought guns to Senator's health care town meetings last year, or other such meetings in the past year. The question was this. IF say a black group or a Latino group of citizens came to similar political meeting that were maybe addressing urban issues or about immigration, bearing guns, what do you think would happen?

It's kind of scary when everyone can carry guns everywhere. Some states do allow it right ? I understand the arguments that say if everyone has a gun, you're home is less likely to be broken in to (when you are home).But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns. That is, what if a majority of people feel that allowing every crazy person (not yet documented as such) to carry a gun in their truck is too expensive a price to pay for you also to be able to have one in yours?

I like guns. Always have. But I agree the need for specific restrictions. As for deviations ? Not sure what you mean. Do you mean how far from the official law can people deviate, without serious consequences ? That is an enforcement question, and is probably going to be somewhat subjective depending on the jurisdiction, and who the offender is and who the judge is.

""But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns."" --- and there you have it. We never had a vote on gun restrictions. None. And yet, you suggest we go with majority rule on the removal of my rights were my weapons are concerned. Odd.

On the other hand .. ""But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on sexual deviants."" The voters of California have beaten back the deviant beast twice now and each time an activist judge wants to play god. A lone judge does not have the right to veto our votes.

Bap33 says

“”But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns.”" — and there you have it. We never had a vote on gun restrictions. None. And yet, you suggest we go with majority rule on the removal of my rights were my weapons are concerned. Odd.
On the other hand .. “”But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on sexual deviants.”" The voters of California have beaten back the deviant beast twice now and each time an activist judge wants to play god. A lone judge does not have the right to veto our votes.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you really think that constitution says we have the right to carry a firearm everywhere we go? Reasonable restrictions to prevent harm to others is just common sense. People using and carrying guns can be a clear and present danger to society at large. That doesn't mean we can't own a firearm, but restrictions are clearly warranted.

Restricting the rights of others to marry based on religious doctrine is not even in the same ball park. The problem is the state is a little too cozy and not separated enough from religion. Civil unions for all is the ticket, marriages become a religious ceremony only. Problem solved.

I mean, how would you feel if a bunch of 'liberals' (51%) voted down your right to own a gun? Then a conservative judge says, "Excuse me, but this is unconstitutional." All the liberals start screaming about the judge being biased, playing God, and being a gun-wielding fanatic.

A lone judge DOES have the right to veto our votes if they infringe upon the rights of others and violate constitutional protections. That is why we have judges, to protect us from our own biases and stupidity, among other things.

Bap33 says

“”But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns.”" — and there you have it. We never had a vote on gun restrictions. None. And yet, you suggest we go with majority rule on the removal of my rights were my weapons are concerned. Odd.

Indirectly we should get what the majority wants with our gun restrictions, via our legislators. I would argue that the reason you can't ride around legally with a gun in your truck is because thats what the majority want. Even without a vote. Remember most states don't even have proposition votes the way California does.
a4adam says

I mean, how would you feel if a bunch of ‘liberals’ (51%) voted down your right to own a gun? Then a conservative judge says, “Excuse me, but this is unconstitutional.”

Exactly. Which is what would happen.

Let's not forget, this isn't even over yet. It's probably going to the supreme court.

It depends on what "deviant" behavior you are talking about. If you are speaking of "gay" types of sexual activities- oral, anal, devices, bondage, s&m, etc- then you are talking about the same practices many or most heterosexual do or have done in their lives. So what. You gonna waste time and money spying on them to prosecute for some percieved grossly immoral behavior? Sure would insure more jobs for police and the legal system. Most of them never met a law they didn't like. Truth is we have too many laws restricting people from doing things that by and large only affect them.

If you are talking sexual victimization as deviance I would whole heartedly agree. No means no, to disregard this is rape.
Sexual behavior with children is despicable- throw away the key. Sexual enslavement including pimping and slave trade is criminal. But prostitution itself, not my business. Consequenses for the prostitutes or johns or pornstars, not my problem, not my business, they're all adults. Stop wasting my tax dollars bothering these people. Concentrate on theives, thugs, gangland crimes, rapists, murderers, fraudsters, robbers, and molesters.

On guns, don't see a problem having a gun in the car. Don't really see carrying a concealed weapon if you feel threatened during certain situations. Openly carrying a loaded firearm seems to be a bit much too me. I think it could be sort of provacative in some situations, might make others feel uneasy and defensive.

I think lesbians should allowed to get married cuz that's hot.

as for gun control, they do restrict one's rights. All rights are restricted as we have to find the laws and norms that work best as a society, eg. ye olde "yelling fire in the theatre" example.

There is a rational basis for gun control laws -- reducing the arms race between criminals and nutjobs and the police -- and these laws have to pass the undue burden test -- ie are proportionate in their aims of balancing societal interests with the limitations on personal freedom they incur.

Gun owners in the state can be considered a minority in this case and the "tyranny of the majority" does certainly apply, especially for the military-style weapons that were banned outright not too long ago. It's also unfortunate that gun laws meant to apply to urban areas also apply to the great empty spaces of northern and mountainous California. I'd prefer finer granularity in gun laws, so that they applied at the county and city level.

I would LOVE to own and practice with an M4A1, I recognize that the general state of the world requires gun control here in California. I believe I have a 2nd Amendment right to purchase and become proficient in the M4A1's use, but not any carte blanche right to have this powerful weapon at hand (eg. in my apartment in Sunnyvale) or with me at all times in my car.

This is kinda like seatbelt laws. Yes they suck for everyone at the individual level but they are not undue burdens given the overall benefits they bring.

Giving gay couples the full benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law really has nothing to do with this, as the judge's Findings of Fact attempted to show.

The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116. That is JUST highway crashes, not every death from any type of car crash.

Firearms accounted for 29,573 deaths in 2001. That is every death that killed anyone in America... bad guys, good guys, accidents, all of them.

I guess there should be a massive liberal ban on cars right away huh? They even have special classes for young people on how to operate a car -- but none about guns -- and yet, cars kill more people .. by +30%.

People that are afraid of people being armed have never seen what a car does if aimed at a person, or what a ball bat does to the human head, or what three large males can do to one female using nothing but their hands. Trust me folks, the weapon is not what should have your attention.

Anyways, my point may have been lost, but no vote of the people was used to remove my gun rights, but they were removed. And somehow the vote of the people was reduced to nill when used to set law. Why is my right to be armed, or my right to vote for laws, able to be removed be the will of any one person? It's weird.

As for deviant coupling ... no biggie. Me and my brother are going to get married and use our minority status to get free loans to start an all hispanic male brothel ... we are thinking of calling it San Quentin.

Bap33 says

The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116. That is JUST highway crashes, not every death from any type of car crash.

Firearms accounted for 29,573 deaths in 2001. That is every death that killed anyone in America… bad guys, good guys, accidents, all of them.

I guess there should be a massive liberal ban on cars right away huh?

I guess that if all cars were designed to do is kill, and that was the one and only utility you could get from a car, then you might have an interesting point.(I know guns do more than just kill. There is sport, and also there is the potential to kill, that is self defense, and or intimidation and crime, collecting and so on.)

The restrictions on guns are not a liberal cause per se. It just so happens that the gun lobby is tied to the republican side.

We did elect representatives who gave us current gun laws, and we could elect others that would change them. I thought that the whole NRA backed gun movement was more about preserving the gun rights we have than it was about feeling that two many gun rights had been taken away.

I do agree with what Troy said above, but then what exactly would a guy out in a rural area in California want that is currently illegal?

Everyone I know owns a gun, including me. I live in the mountains and it's the norm. I guess in the city, things are different. I'd prefer no one tell me what to do.

This thread is going south though, I have a question.

marcus says

It’s kind of scary when everyone can carry guns everywhere. Some states do allow it right ?

"Common, it is not like I am going to kill you, asshole"
Yeah, people do this BS all the time, and people can do whatever they think they can, but ... is it legaly possible to have a gun in your belt exposed at Walmart? Or, Virigina is one of that state?

I don't give a damn about straight, gay, bi, trans or whatever. In fact, I don't give you a damn if you'd like to marry a dog or something. Just make sure your hubby/wife don't bite me. I think this judgement has nothing to do with gay issue or marriage issue. It's all about the aftermath issue that comes with gay marriage.

Gay is human too, so why not let them marry? Aren't they already living together? Aren't people recognise them as a couple? So what's the matter? Constitution?

But the question is what could happen after that.
Will they have kids? How does this affect the kid's life? How to see this matter in society level? What's gonna happen when they devorced or something? and so forth. All those questions are quite not answered yet and there's not much laws about it. Even if those legal aspects had been taken care of somehow, I don't think US systems, that are so stupid that can't even handle hypen/space in your name can effectively handle stuff like that.

seaside says

This thread is going south though

Indeed.

seaside says

“Common, it is not like I am going to kill you, asshole”

Who are you quoting ? My issue is that if we're all carrying guns, I'm afraid that I will kill you.

Bap33 says

I guess there should be a massive liberal ban on cars right away huh?

No, because the majority will never tyrannize itself, though seatbelt laws come close. Damn liberals and their seatbelt laws interfering with our freedoms.

The similar issues involved here with gun control and equal rights for the gays aren't really that difficult for you to understand, are they?

“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority”-- James Madison

elliemae says

I’d prefer no one tell me what to do.

I agree, but what does that have to do with owning a gun? When your a-hole neighbor tells you to cut your grass, do you go pull a gun on him?

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

I’d prefer no one tell me what to do.

I agree, but what does that have to do with owning a gun? When your a-hole neighbor tells you to cut your grass, do you go pull a gun on him?

No. I also didn't pull a gun when a drunk guy I knew was banging on my screen door and fell thru it, then tore it off the hinges. I knew the cops were on their way and didn't believe myself to be in danger of bodily harm. If I had, I would have pulled my gun out. My point is, you don't pull a gun on someone unless you intend to use it. It's never happened to me yet, probably never will.

seaside says

But the question is what could happen after that.
Will they have kids? How does this affect the kid’s life? How to see this matter in society level? What’s gonna happen when they devorced or something? and so forth. All those questions are quite not answered yet and there’s not much laws about it. Even if those legal aspects had been taken care of somehow, I don’t think US systems, that are so stupid that can’t even handle hypen/space in your name can effectively handle stuff like that.

Gay people raise children already. A law won't make a difference, although it could eventually settle the stupidity of one partner adopting the child, which effectively terminates the other partner's rights. And if they get divorced, it'll be like heterosexuals who get divorced. It's a reality and should be viewed no differently than any other couple.

Some women & men take the other's name with a hyphen when they marry, and the system deals with it just fine.

What I don't understand is why, in nearly every argument, someone always brings up deviant sex. This includes fetishism, cross dressing, sexual sadomasochism, pedophilia, and sex with animals. I'm not attacking anyone here - it's just that homosexuality doesn't have to include these practices and it detracts from the issue; that gays & lesbians don't have the same rights as do heterosexuals, which includes the right to marry and receive the legal recognition that goes along with that.

According to Dr. Herek from UC Davis, there's no evidence to connect homosexuality to pedophilia. I was gonna look up the other deviant practices, but I think ya'll get the point.

We need to get out of people's bedrooms and allow them to feel free to be who they are - and to recognize that marital committment means something.

Now it's getting wierd. The Govenator and Gerry Brown are urging the federal judge to immediately allow gay marriage to resume.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-ruling-20100807,0,3381377.story

Meanwhile, President Obama still opposes gay marriage. According to a story in the same paper, he opposes gay marriage but believes in equality for gays & lesbians. HUH?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/obama-still-opposes-gay-marriage.html

elliemae says

he opposes gay marriage but believes in equality for gays & lesbians. HUH?

This is called "triangulation". The gays can't vote Republican so politics suggests nibbling on the mushy middle will result in more popular support, perhaps the critical difference in swing states, where one underinformed idiot can decide the election.

elliemae says

My point is, you don’t pull a gun on someone unless you intend to use it.

Well, I think it's perfectly OK to have the gun in hand and ready to fire in threatening circumstances, but you should only POINT the gun at someone you are going to shoot to kill.

The problem with that is, of course, the stress of the situation causing bad decisions to be made, like that Louisiana guy who plugged the idiot Japanese foreign exchange student.

C'mon folks. Let's just admit that the arguments against gay marriage boil down to two issues. The first being the tendency to not like groups of people unlike ourselves. This attitude has been passed down through the ages from the dawn of man. It is a group survival instinct. I know you religious folks don't like the term instinct when applied to humans because you believe we are the crown of creation and not animals.

But we are animals. But religious folks only use arguments like it's in "the scriptures" or thats what Jesus said. Or because the bible tells us so. Believe what you want but don't subject others to your dogma via the legal system. The law doesn't care about your faith or beliefs. It cares only about facts and evidence. There is no evidence that even one word of the bible was penned by God, or if there even is a god. These notions are based on belief and faith. Frankly, these days some religious organizations are more about control, and getting converts for the almighty- BUCK- than actually doing the work of helping the unfortunates. There is a quote in the bible, "beware of false prophets, for when judged by their deeds I will not know them.". There are tons of these false prophets, cashing in on the religion biz. And hungry for power.

deanrite, I think you're only 50% right. One of the major Prop 8 supporters, the Chinese guy, did make the argument that gays are part of Satan's plot to kill America or something.

This is a minority viewpoint and wasn't enough to put Prop 8 over the 50% requirement.

There is actually a real-world component to the gay debate. For one, there is a very distasteful element of PUBLIC lewdness that the gay community is stuck with. The leather fetish, the gay pride nudity, and the scourge of cruising for gay sex in any and all public restrooms are big strikes against "accepting" homosexuals and their "lifestyle".

Additionally, I think most parents, being hetero, would prefer their offspring to grow up hetero, if they had the choice. Prop 8 was a chance to legislate this wish.

The situation is not so black and white, as usual.

Troy says

There is actually a real-world component to the gay debate. For one, there is a very distasteful element of PUBLIC lewdness that the gay community is stuck with. The leather fetish, the gay pride nudity, and the scourge of cruising for gay sex in any and all public restrooms are big strikes against “accepting” homosexuals and their “lifestyle”.

Yes, flamboyant gays are scarey to grandma in Wichita. When one says "gay," the immediate thought is a gay pride parade in SF. Lesbian? we think of a militant dyke. Damn Meridith Baxter, Portia DiRossi, and Chely Wright (country singer) for not looking like they're gay. Same thing with normal, male gays who don't act flamboyant and present like a "normal" hetero.

The cruising for gay sex is detrimental as well - except that no one takes exception to prostitutes, bar ho's, hookups, booty calls, friends with benefits, extra marital affairs, etc in the same manner as they do cruising for gay sex. As long as it's hetero, we don't care what they do.

Troy says

Additionally, I think most parents, being hetero, would prefer their offspring to grow up hetero, if they had the choice.

The biggest reason I wouldn't wish my child to be gay is the reception he'd have in society. It's hard enough to be a kid. Those who think it means no grandkids don't understand that hetero kids don't guarantee this either - and gays can have children too. They're human and possess the necessary parts.

Troy says

Prop 8 was a chance to legislate this wish. The situation is not so black and white, as usual.

Absolutely. It's sad that we try to legislate behaviors that should be personal.

Troy says

Additionally, I think most parents, being hetero, would prefer their offspring to grow up hetero, if they had the choice. Prop 8 was a chance to legislate this wish.

When I hear proponents of prop 8 arguing their point of view, if you sift through the bs, this is the only real argument I hear them making. They are saying (fearing) that ultimately this will be considered and taught to be a totally acceptable lifestyle choice, that is coupling with the same sex, and yes, they think for the good of our culture (and for the propagation of amrecians (whites ?)) they need to block it.

The thing is, it is nearly an acceptable choice already. I say nearly, because many peoples families would still freak out to find their son or daughter is gay. And it is becoming a more acceptable choice, regardless. IT just is. Things will change, and probably more people who could go either way, will choose that lifestyle. But we aren't talking about that big of a difference, because those that could go either way are ( I beleive) a relatively small part of the gay population.

Besides. Given the 7 billion people in the world, maybe this, the lifestyle choice, is somehow a natural development (not that homosexuality hasn't always existed).