Prop 8 Announcement

[oggbashan]

Yesterday, the Church of Scotland agreed that a gay minister, living in a gay relationship, can be a minister of one of their churches.

The minister had the backing of the majority of his congregation. Now he has the official backing of the Church of Scotland's authorities.

This has been a difficult decision for the Church of Scotland and not everyone will be happy with it. Until recently I would have thought it impossible.

Og

 

[Liar]

So if you think it is okay for courts to overturn a popular vote, then you must be cool with the 2000 SCOTUS decision that made GWB the President, eh?

If it was the legally correct thing to do, then yes. (However, that's a big if. Looks like there was some fairly questionable legalities and conflicts of interest there.)

A court desicion overturning Prop 8 should be on the grounds that Prop 8 is incompatible with the supreme law of the land. Or else it should not be overturned. Simple as that.

So nice try to obfuscate the issue by twisting it inside out and throwing it back at me skewed. You get three troll-points and a cookie.

But you didn't answer my question. Are you OK with popular vote desicions that goes against the constitution, and/or it's amendments?

In other words, if we vote on it first and 51% (of those who care to turn up to the ballot) says yes, can I take your gun? Or your house?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

You make assumptions that there is a supreme law of the land and someone, somewhere knows what it is and will enforce it. Maybe an invisible monarch similar to Solomon.

In reality YOU oppose the results of Prop 8 and demand appeal to some authority who agrees with YOU. A do-over.

I suspect what youre gonna get is SCOTUS creating a bird that shits in every gay's nest, including Pixley, Hooterville, Mayberry, and Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal.

Its exactly what Dred Scott did in 1857. Rather than abide by the law of Missouri, he took his case to SCOTUS, and they decided that no black was a citizen, no black had any rights at all, and slavery was legal everywhere.

 

[Liar]

Speaking of gay marriage, there's a conflict in Sweden right now.

Same sex marriage is legal, and in order to get a license to legally marry people, a church has to comply with Swedish marriage laws.

So right now, the legislators, the Church of Sweden, various other religious groups, and activists are quibbling over whether a church has to comply with ALL of the criteria for marriage under Swedish law... that would mean they couldn't discriminate against marrying same-sex couples, if they were to keep their license.

So you could have a strict orthodox church being forced to marry gays, or not (legally) marry anyone at all.

Now, some churches have said they don't give a shit. Like the Islamic and Jewish congregations - they'll just have a civil marriage judge present who does the legal stuff parallell to their religious ceremonies, and everyone's happy.

But some Christian churches are up in arms. The Catholics, the Latter Day-ers, the Penecostals and others are fighting this tooth and nail.

And I've got to say, I agree with them. It's religious discrimination to grant a certain legal right to a church that agrees to wed same-sex couples, and deny it to another with a more traditional view.

Which is why we need a permanent firewall between church business and legal business. It chould always be a civil function. Period.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Why have any organized religion if the government dictates your canons?

 

[Liar]

Why have any civil government it laws are dictated by organized religion? You may be all peacy about living in a theocracy. Others disagree.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

America is no theocracy and never has been. The Iranians have ecclesiastical courts NOT America.

 

[Liar]

No more than the government dictates the canons of religions. So stop throwing bullshit at the walls to see if it sticks.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Forgive me for asking, but what about the rights of the Majority who couldn't give a damn one way or the other ?. They (we?) don't need a shrieking harpies or drag queen yelling at the top of its voice that they have the right to demand something.
We have a bit of a row about this in the UK. Most of us don't mind someone shacking up in same-sex union; we just don't want it ramming down out throats as if it was important.

Let me ask you a couple of questions back.

• Let's say that people got to vote on whether YOU could be married or not. Would that anger you?
  
  
• Then the highest court in your land said that you could be married because that was your constitutional right under the law. So you got legally married. THEN a bunch of "heterophobe" and fundamental non-christian organizations banded together, spending $40 million dollars to make it so you COULDN'T be married any longer, and took away your rights. Would that make YOU want to "shriek" like a "str8" and demand your rights back?
  
  
• Now let's say that only a couple of months after you were forced to change your marriage back into a Civil Union by "the will of the people" (which BTW less than half of the voters in this state voted for) and/or "by public mandate" (48% vs. 52% is NOT a mandate in my book) you were forced to produce a Power of Attorney to visit your spouse in the hospital (and had to argue like hell to be able to see her even then) and the children you have raised together for 8 years were banned all together. Would you consider THAT being rammed down YOUR throat?

Calling me and my kind "shrieking harpies" or "drag queens yelling at the top of their voice" and calling my committed relationship of 11+ years "shacking up" tells me where YOU are coming from already, dude.

Sorry for bothering you. Here's some ear plugs - because we are NOT going to shut up and we ARE going to continue to demand the equality promised to us by our founding fathers when this country was created. When it comes to a choice between the "importance" of your "peace and quiet" and my family's welfare, you freakin lose big time!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

Hahahahaha

Like the lawyers say: WHEN YOU GOT THE FACTS, POUND THE FACTS; WHEN YOU GOT NO FACTS BUT GOT THE LAW, POUND THE LAW; WHEN YOU GOT NO FACTS AND NO LAW, POUND THE TABLE.

 

[john-the-author]

If it was the legally correct thing to do, then yes. (However, that's a big if. Looks like there was some fairly questionable legalities and conflicts of interest there.)

A court desicion overturning Prop 8 should be on the grounds that Prop 8 is incompatible with the supreme law of the land. Or else it should not be overturned. Simple as that.

So nice try to obfuscate the issue by twisting it inside out and throwing it back at me skewed. You get three troll-points and a cookie.

But you didn't answer my question. Are you OK with popular vote desicions that goes against the constitution, and/or it's amendments?

In other words, if we vote on it first and 51% (of those who care to turn up to the ballot) says yes, can I take your gun? Or your house?

Agreed: this isn't overturning a popular vote; this is ruling on the constitutionality of a law, which is what the Supremes do.

 

[Handley_Page]

Safe Bet:


1 I have apologised for my lack of understanding of the critical points in the debate in the USA.

2 Frankly, I don't see too much difference between a Civil Union (or marriage) or a religious marriage (I'll define marriage as the union of two people by legal means). Two are joined together, have taken vows in front of witnesses and that's that. It strikes me that (from what little I've seen of the debate), that too many voices are drawing conclusions ad absurdam. That video was a good example.

3 It's not the quiet pair who do their thing quietly, maybe with a family, with whom I have argument. It's the vociferous railing and whining that goes on in the Press that I'm not keen on.

4 I called no person a shrieking harpie. The 'drag queens' to whom I referred are too often to be found in the pages of the press.

5 I may not agree with your personal lifestyle, but I would defend your right to do it, provided it did not cause anyone any harm.

6 You have every right to demand equality under the Law, as does any citizen.

7 You ain't bothering me and I appreciate your message. I made a bad mistake. Please accept my apologies. If you'd care to send me a PM explaining the problems, I'll try and understand the better.

HP

 

[Boxlicker101]

If it was the legally correct thing to do, then yes. (However, that's a big if. Looks like there was some fairly questionable legalities and conflicts of interest there.)

A court desicion overturning Prop 8 should be on the grounds that Prop 8 is incompatible with the supreme law of the land. Or else it should not be overturned. Simple as that.

So nice try to obfuscate the issue by twisting it inside out and throwing it back at me skewed. You get three troll-points and a cookie.

But you didn't answer my question. Are you OK with popular vote desicions that goes against the constitution, and/or it's amendments?

In other words, if we vote on it first and 51% (of those who care to turn up to the ballot) says yes, can I take your gun? Or your house?

Just to make a small quibble, the question will be decided by the CALIFORNIA State Supreme Court. This is not a federal issue; it is still a state issue. It will be decided on a rather vague point, which is why the decision will largely be based on the personal beliefs of the judges in the CSSC. If the prop. is upheld, which is what I expect, the next step would be to take it to SCOTUS and/or to start another initiative going which would repeal the prop., thereby amending the State Constitution again.

The US Constitution cannot be amended by popular vote. There is also no federal initiative process as there is in some states. Amending the US Constitution is a lengthy and complicated process and hasn't been done very often.

 

[Boxlicker101]

LIAR

America is no theocracy and never has been. The Iranians have ecclesiastical courts NOT America.

America has never been a theocracy, although under W we came closer than comfort to being one. I am refering to things such as the presidential edicts against stem cell research and birth control. However, some laws do have a theocratic background. I don't mean laws against things such as murder or assault or larceny; I refer to anti-sodomy statutes or laws against adultery. By rights, such things should be nobody's business except the persons inolved.

The prohibitions of gay marriage are more of the theocracy-inspired laws. Marriage should be a contract, entered into by adults, with certain requirements and expectations of both parties. If some persons wish to have the contract solemnized through religious ceremony, that should be their right, but it should not be required.

 

[DG Hear]

America has never been a theocracy, although under W we came closer than comfort to being one. I am refering to things such as the presidential edicts against stem cell research and birth control. However, some laws do have a theocratic background. I don't mean laws against things such as murder or assault or larceny; I refer to anti-sodomy statutes or laws against adultery. By rights, such things should be nobody's business except the persons inolved.

The prohibitions of gay marriage are more of the theocracy-inspired laws. Marriage should be a contract, entered into by adults, with certain requirements and expectations of both parties. If some persons wish to have the contract solemnized through religious ceremony, that should be their right, but it should not be required.

Where does it end? Right now, any man can marry most any woman and vise versa. Same rights correct?

Now we say any man should be allowed to mary most any woman or another man, again vice versa.

What's next? Can relatives marry relatives? sister/sister or sister/brother? Mom and son, or dad and daughter? You can figure out all the combinations on your own.

Believe me when it comes to money in a lot of families, the inheritances mean a lot. These people can use the same reason that gay couples do; We want the right to marry anyone we choose, relative or not.

Then I guess we could get into pets. I know it's weird but there hare people out there who would want it.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Where does it end? Right now, any man can marry most any woman and vise versa. Same rights correct?

Now we say any man should be allowed to mary most any woman or another man, again vice versa.

What's next? Can relatives marry relatives? sister/sister or sister/brother? Mom and son, or dad and daughter? You can figure out all the combinations on your own.

Believe me when it comes to money in a lot of families, the inheritances mean a lot. These people can use the same reason that gay couples do; We want the right to marry anyone we choose, relative or not.

Then I guess we could get into pets. I know it's weird but there hare people out there who would want it.

DG Hear, you make me sick. How dare you relate my marriage to the person I love to beastiality. You disgust me, you homophobic piece of shit!

 

[john-the-author]

America has never been a theocracy, although under W we came closer than comfort to being one. I am refering to things such as the presidential edicts against stem cell research and birth control. However, some laws do have a theocratic background. I don't mean laws against things such as murder or assault or larceny; I refer to anti-sodomy statutes or laws against adultery. By rights, such things should be nobody's business except the persons inolved.

The prohibitions of gay marriage are more of the theocracy-inspired laws. Marriage should be a contract, entered into by adults, with certain requirements and expectations of both parties. If some persons wish to have the contract solemnized through religious ceremony, that should be their right, but it should not be required.

Some states are definitely a theocracy, such as Oklahoma, which has just approved the 10 Commandments being put up in a public place with public money because of their "historical importance." Yeah, blow me; I'm still figuring it's the Christian fascists and that anything that represented another religion they're not claiming as their own would get short shrift.

Kansas also has something like that--consider the recent Kansas State Board of Education's brief flirting with creation being co-equal to evolution, brought to you by Christian numbnuts who have no business voting since they clearly can't think or understand.

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that some religions have rules I don't agree with, which, oddly enough, has a lot to do with why I have little respect for them. That's their choice to be that dumb, but just because their version of God (or "Ga-wud" as many have it) requires them to think that way doesn't mean that I have to take them seriously or let them actually make rules that affect the rest of the world just because it makes them happy.

I'm rather reminded of the description of Puritanism: the morbid fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time. So, if these people don't like gay marriage, well, they do say that suffering is good for the soul. Me, I'm looking forward to my eldest stepdaughter and her partner being able to marry in the US soon. It's looking like it'll happen.

 

[Liar]

Where does it end? Right now, any man can marry most any woman and vise versa. Same rights correct?

Now we say any man should be allowed to mary most any woman or another man, again vice versa.

What's next? Can relatives marry relatives? sister/sister or sister/brother? Mom and son, or dad and daughter? You can figure out all the combinations on your own.

Believe me when it comes to money in a lot of families, the inheritances mean a lot. These people can use the same reason that gay couples do; We want the right to marry anyone we choose, relative or not.

Then I guess we could get into pets. I know it's weird but there hare people out there who would want it.

If by "marry" you mean form a contract that grants certain next-of-kin rights and responsibilities to another person (which is all a marriage is, legally) that today we only grant to husband and wife, then yes, any consenting human adults should be allowed to sign those. For any damn reason they want.

It two straight men want to form a platonic "marriage", who are we to tell them their motivation for it is not good enough?

"What about pets" is a ridiculous and fallacious argument. Animals can't legally consent.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

"What about pets" is a ridiculous and fallacious argument. Animals can't legally consent.

Precisely. Under law, marriage is a contract. Animals and minor children are excluded from entering into contracts. DG's attempt at reductio ad absurdum is itself absurd.

 

[Boxlicker101]

America has never been a theocracy, although under W we came closer than comfort to being one. I am refering to things such as the presidential edicts against stem cell research and birth control. However, some laws do have a theocratic background. I don't mean laws against things such as murder or assault or larceny; I refer to anti-sodomy statutes or laws against adultery. By rights, such things should be nobody's business except the persons inolved.

The prohibitions of gay marriage are more of the theocracy-inspired laws. Marriage should be a contract, entered into by adults, with certain requirements and expectations of both parties. If some persons wish to have the contract solemnized through religious ceremony, that should be their right, but it should not be required.

I was actually in error here, and I want to correct it. I said "America." I should have said "The United States." Some of the colonies, when thery were formed, were theocracies. Plymouth Colony especially comes to mind.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Where does it end? Right now, any man can marry most any woman and vise versa. Same rights correct?

Now we say any man should be allowed to mary most any woman or another man, again vice versa.

What's next? Can relatives marry relatives? sister/sister or sister/brother? Mom and son, or dad and daughter? You can figure out all the combinations on your own.

Believe me when it comes to money in a lot of families, the inheritances mean a lot. These people can use the same reason that gay couples do; We want the right to marry anyone we choose, relative or not.

Then I guess we could get into pets. I know it's weird but there hare people out there who would want it.

Actually, that's not completely true. I am currently (very happily) married, and I would not be able to marry another woman, unless my current marriage ended through death or divorce. That is actually part of the contractual agreement I have with my wife. If Prop. 8 were to be overturned, I would have the same restriction on marrying another man.

The laws against incest are based on very well established scientific fact. Sex between close relatives will sometimes concentrate unwanted genes, such as hemophilia and epilepsy, in their offfspring, and this is very well established fact too. As for two brothers or two sisters gettting married, that might present an interesting conundrum.

Is Heather better off having two mommies than she would be with a mommy and a daddy? That depends on the individual mommies and daddy. However, she is almost certainly better off with two mommies than she would be with only one.

 

[cloudy]

Where does it end? Right now, any man can marry most any woman and vise versa. Same rights correct?

Now we say any man should be allowed to mary most any woman or another man, again vice versa.

What's next? Can relatives marry relatives? sister/sister or sister/brother? Mom and son, or dad and daughter? You can figure out all the combinations on your own.

Believe me when it comes to money in a lot of families, the inheritances mean a lot. These people can use the same reason that gay couples do; We want the right to marry anyone we choose, relative or not.

Then I guess we could get into pets. I know it's weird but there hare people out there who would want it.

Most idiotic argument ever.

 

[DG Hear]

Most idiotic argument ever.

Ok forget the animals part. I know of families that would marry their mother or father if they could get the inheratence. Instead of sharing it with siblings. I also know men who would marry other men because of the health insurance.

I have no problem with what people do in their own life.
Let God judge them.

Safe Bet
Who are you to tell me what I have to accept when you are not able to accept the rules unless they agree with you. I always thought you were kind of funny but now I can see how sickening you are. All that ever comes out of your mouth anymore is trash.

You are the kind of person that makes me hope whatever you want fails. I don't like being this way but people like you turn me against whatever they want.

I never compaired your relationship to beastality. More like what if you want to mary a relative either male or female. That will be the next hurdle to be jumped. It's never ending. What's next after you marry your girlfriend, maybe we should allow you to marry two or three other women or even add a man or two.

Everyone should have the right to marry any gender and as many as they want. Or don't you believe that people shouldn't have that choice? Where does it end with you?

I'm happy with the way it is. We all have the same choice. If I wanted to marry another woman or man, I don't have that option either.

And you talk about hypocrites! You're as bad as they come.

 

[cloudy]

Ok forget the animals part. I know of families that would marry their mother or father if they could get the inheratence. Instead of sharing it with siblings. I also know men who would marry other men because of the health insurance.

I have no problem with what people do in their own life.
Let God judge them.

Safe Bet
Who are you to tell me what I have to accept when you are not able to accept the rules unless they agree with you. I always thought you were kind of funny but now I can see how sickening you are. All that ever comes out of your mouth anymore is trash.

You are the kind of person that makes me hope whatever you want fails. I don't like being this way but people like you turn me against whatever they want.

I never compaired your relationship to beastality. More like what if you want to mary a relative either male or female. That will be the next hurdle to be jumped. It's never ending. What's next after you marry your girlfriend, maybe we should allow you to marry two or three other women or even add a man or two.

Everyone should have the right to marry any gender and as many as they want. Or don't you believe that people shouldn't have that choice? Where does it end with you?

I'm happy with the way it is. We all have the same choice. If I wanted to marry another woman or man, I don't have that option either.

And you talk about hypocrites! You're as bad as they come.

What's next? Cats and dogs living together in sin, utter chaos, the sky will fall....

Dude, you're a bigot. Admit it.

 

[DG Hear]

What's next? Cats and dogs living together in sin, utter chaos, the sky will fall....

Dude, you're a bigot. Admit it.

I think one man, one woman, one marriage. Want to divorce and do it again, so be it. I'm happy with it just the way it is. Call me what you like; if it makes you feel bigger and better.

If they allow anyone to marry anyone, I choose to do away with marraige altogether. Problem solved for everyone.