The rights of the people of California are struck down by the Supreme Court

After I vette then to make sure they are good people, I will. My daughters, too.

 

]

The only ones who are bothered by this ruling are the ones who don't want to be reminded of their own homosexual desires. They have bought into the theory that it is wrong and so are now actively participating in their own enslavement.

 

That's a matter of opinion. Opinions aren't enshrined.

 

Except that isn't the effect of the ruling. If voters were to amend the California constitution banning recognition of polygamous marriages, the governor could still decide to defend that law.

The outcome arrived at in Hollingsworth v. Perry is due to the State refusing to defend the law voters enacted. It is not because "gay marriage" "dissolved Majority-Citizens rights". It did nothing of the sort, and "majority-citizens rights" are not absolute just because they voted. The Constitution which voters adopted as a whole, and the courts' interpretation thereof, stands taller than any individual law or amendment enacted by voters through a state's initiative process. We don't live in a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Also untrue. The initiative process remains unchanged. That voters' desire to enact a discriminatory amendment ultimately failed to succeed doesn't "shatter" that process. It does point out that the process is not bulletproof.

Meanwhile, the real court decision can be read here...

 

Looks like the right wing has a new slogan!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it's called a Will.

 

It is if you have a long one!

 

Good point. God is all for polygamy, incest and pedophilia, according to the Bible. Why do conservative Christians want to go against the Bible?

- - - Updated - - -

Only whining I see here are from the anti-gay people.

 

Well, of course. They get their talking points and marching orders from the likes of intellectual giants such as Hannity and Beck. When the shepherd says, "March"! the sheep go "Baaaaaaaa" (which means "Yes, Sir"! in sheep language).

 

I will just point out that your record of announcing what the Supreme Court can or will do is so far a perfect failure.

 

Pedophiles go out of their way to socially charm, disarm and "win" parents of the targets they're after. I'm not sure of your vetting process. Care to share? Because mine goes on statistics. For instance, when I read the following quotes from the CDC and the Mayo Clinic, I deduce that because having been abused as children is rampant among gay men statistically, and that the best indication or predictor that a person will likely molest kids is if they've been molested themselves as a child..I notice then that gay men would make a very poor statistical choice to leave a young boy with to babysit. Even if they are very intelligent, charming and "nice" people. This disease does best under a tight shroud.

When the experts spray paint the writing on the wall, you act to protect vulnerable children first, and not offending "nice people" second. Always in that order.

 

and that particular lie of yours has been consistently pointed out over and over again.

and that isn't from the mayo clinic.

the experts directly contradict your conclusions.

 

What's the problem? Your sons can play with the gay couple's sons. Seems like a win-win to me.

 

Not sure what the "actually" was for as youve not contradicted anything I said.

 

Semantics, Their decisions create a right that never existed in their states history.

 

Because the restriction to opposite sex couples was the only restriction preventing gay couples from marrying. And all held that ONLY denying gay couples the rights of marriage was a violation of the constitution. Arguing that the only reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman is to exclude homosexuals from marrying. Which is absurd. Heterosexuals have always been encouraged to marry because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. Closely related couples, regardless of their ability or willingness to procreate are excluded because of the potential of procreation and the potential detrimental gentis effects. Marriages are annuled for a failure to consummate a relationship because of the impossibility of procreation without consummation. Sexual relations are simply presumed between a man and a woman who are married.

Revealing how all you gay advocates claim traditional marriage laws discriminate against gays, even though no law requires that individuals marrying must be heterosexual. The fact that someone is a homosexual has no impact in the law. No law even inquires as to the sexuality of the pair seeking marriage. And now that marriage has been extended to gay couples in several states, somehow this complete absence of even a mention of ones sexuality in marriage laws somehow shows marriage isnt limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

 

You mean they eliminated the only restriction that prevented gay couples from marrying while leaving all other restrictions in place, because the court held that only the denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples is a violation of the constitution.

 

^Somebody's pissed

 

Yeah, thats why "I would advocate for my state to create federal marriages"

 

And it's so sweet to watch after all the bluster and over confidence over the last few years on the part of the anti-equality crowd.

 

I do not agree. Physically and psychologically, there is harm done to and in both spheres of the endeavors of activity and existence.
This is why homosexuality, bestiality, fornication and all other sexual behaviors outside of a married and dedicated male/female relationship are condemned and looked upon with consternation. I am sure that you and other will disagree, but it is what it is. Neither am I forcing my convictions on others, I am simply stating the reasoning behind my objection of homosexuality, fornication, bestiality and all other accepted behaviors that are not in accord with right and clean living.

 

Interesting fact: Blacks and Latinos in California overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8 in California. They were the demographically a deciding factor.

 

Exactly. Now there is essentially precedent to establish same-sex marriage in all 50 states. People will marry in states with marriage equality and return home with federal recognition still in tact, chaos will ensue, and a universal standard will be needed. I believe Kennedy is ready to do so based on his Prop 8 dissent: he indicated that he wanted to the court to address the marriage question. With 5th Amendment precedent established from the DOMA case, it's not difficult to envision a couple suing a state like Virginia, The AG defending it all the way up to the Supreme Court where standing won't be an issue, and eventually SCOTUS declaring a Constitutional right to SSM under parts of the DOMA precedent (despite federalism being a part of it). It'll take perhaps 4/5 years, but I think it's inevitable now.

- - - Updated - - -

And now most polls show Latinos lead (60%) in their support for SSM, and black support has significantly increased since Obama endorsed equal marriage. Prop 8 would have been overturned if it had been put back on the ballot, by a mile.

 

There is no state with marriage equality. All states restrict any two people closely related from marrying.

 

Pointless critique of my rhetoric changes nothing, the rest of my post was accurate and you know it. As far as SSM goes, Baker V Nelson looks more insignificant than ever. This has set the stage for a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

 

Why? The Court used the "no person shall be disparaged of the priveleges of others" clause to ban California's voters from setting standards for marriage there. So, in fact, all states have full marriage equality as a matter of precedent. No state means no state. None. Utah must recognize polygamy now since to not do so would be in violation of the spirit of yesterday's Decision. Same with incest adults. Their priveleges may not be disparaged.