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

Yes, I read it, and I realized you were incorrect in your interpretation of it. Did you have another question for me or are you going to continue to pretend that there is something that would obligate an elected official to defend a law in court?

 

then it doesn't matter if the majority of people are married or not and gay marriage dose give equality with the majority to a minority whether you use it or not

and its still not the same rule for every one if you ban interracial marriages it targets people in interracial relationships without cause and leaves racists untouched

same with gay marriage

you cant make rules that benefit you and cheat others and call that equality its not the same situation for you and your victims

 

nope. no prohibition existed anywhere in the law until the 1970s

- - - Updated - - -

it's astounding watching you idiotically post ancient BC roman law and UN declarations as if they have any relevance to US law.
procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

 

Believe that bit of foolishment if you please, the reality is that sexual intercourse is for a male and female couple, though in wartimes a man is allowed to marry his dead comrades wife so that her and her children are still maintained. I do not bother in back and forth conversations with Ahl al-Alam for you are but a passing glimpses in a universe that is timeless.

 

the reality is sexual intercourse is for what ever the reason the people having it have the reality is consenting adults are legally able to have sex out side of heterosexual marriage in the untied states and in many places please stop believing foolishness please don't try to bind others to the foolishness you believe in

but please feel free to only have sex to some one of the other gender who agreed to marry you

 

and yet, sexual intercourse is meant for lawfully consenting parties. this can be two man, two women, a woman and man, a woman and many men, a man and many women.

you will not find any prohibition in the law supporting your magical sky fairy's version of sexuality

 

And that's bad why, exactly?

 

Day 3 since the Suprem Court made it's ruling on DOMA, and hell has yet to freeze over.

As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. It's hot as (*)(*)(*)(*) out here in Sin City!

 

I also find it quite shocking that despite same sex marriage being legal in parts of the US for years now, not a singe bill that would legalize folks marrying their goats has been put forth. I am starting to think that society will not crumble of consenting adults are allowed to enter into the private relationships of their choice.

 

It is amazing. The fact of the matter is they simply find people who are in love with someone that happens to be the same sex as them as icky & yucky. And they want big government to protect them from that ickyness & yuckyness.

I bet Tex hurls everytime he sees your avatar. LOL

 

Punishing people for breaking the law is not equivalent to granting certain groups special privileges. If you punished only black people for speeding, and not white people, then that would be violating the equal protection clause. Your example is...dumb.

Read up on age of consent laws and child labor laws.

Didn't say you did. Just giving you an example.

Doesn't matter if its genetic. If interracial marriage is made legal, it opens the door to making homosexual marriage legal, thus interracial marriage should be illegal. That's your argument against gay marriage, plain and simple.

Ok, still irrelevant to same-sex marriage. Just like interracial marriage is irrelevant to same-sex marriage.

So then if marriage isn't a right, why should interracial couples be allowed to marry? What should they have that right? If a black man wanted to marry, he could just marry a black woman. He still has the right to get married, everyone is equal. Therefore, get rid of interracial marriage.

See, there's the logic of your argument. Its stupid. Sorry.

I didn't say the Supreme Court said that. Let me refresh your pathetically short-term memory with my older post which you responded to, claiming to have read the documents I references: I specifically mentioned the decision of the lower court. I told you to read what they said. If you did, you would realize they said exactly what I have been saying. Your "arguments" get more infantile by the minute. I am starting to wonder if you are even old enough to marry yourself. Maybe that's why you keep bringing it up.

I made it bigger since bolding and italicizing didn't seem to work. Again, I didn't argue the Supreme Court said that. I'm talking about the Federal District Court, whose ruling the Supreme Court deferred to.

I answered them. You just ignored the answers and then repeated your arguments like they were new.

Children cannot consent. Do children have the right to vote? No. You need to understand what consent means. Its a very basic legal concept.

I'm not a liberal. Just another one of your false and unsupported assumptions that you mindlessly believe.

 

This is utter nonsense. Marriage and procreation are separate issues. Many married couples do not procreate and many unmarried couples procreate.

If you want to give benefits based on procreation then you do it on the basis of procreation and not because two people happen to have some kind of union.

 

Well California...you heard it here first. Get ready for a mormon or muslim judge to ratify polygamy without your permission. Will a NAMBLA judge sit on age-limits for marriage next?...

 

Government recognizes two people uniting in marriage. Excluding people from that privilege without just cause (such as same-sex couples), would be a disenfranchisement.

Prior to 1973, the privilege to marry was not explicitly codified as a privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that explicit codification was a reaction to a same-sex couple attempting to marry, and thus part of the disenfranshising exclusion.

 

There are no laws banning gay marriage. Only laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. And, stable homes are not limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples soooooooo not sure of your point

 

An unreasonable demand, since the disenfranchisement of same-sex couples predates even the enactment of marriage bans starting in 1973 through the criminalization of the private consensual conduct - struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. That criminalization is very much linked to the absence of same-sex marriages prior to the formal bans.

But no surprise that you conveniently ignore the full context to make an unreasonable demand of proof. The absence of same-sex marriages due to the criminalization of private, consensual same-sex behavior, followed by the codification of explicit bans starting in 1973 in reaction to their attempt to marry, is all the proof needed of the long-standing disenfranchisement of same-sex couples.

 

You and Raul can repeat this silliness over and over again. It's still silliness. The word marriage explicitly limited marriage to a man and a woman. But feel free to show us you are not full of it and provide even one example of same sex marriage in the US prior to 2003.

 

The same can be said of polygamy or incest marriages.

 

Get used to it. Gay Marriage is now recognized by the federal government, and very soon all 50 states will be required to recognize it.

 

Tex was claiming "the rights of Californians were trampled on. Exactly what right was trampled on ?

 

It did not. Criminalization of same-sex behavior did.

 

Easy. The power of their vote was stripped [disenfranchised] from them by the judges who wrongly declared gays as a class, when the fed just declared they were not.

Gays were not singled out by Prop 8. Gays can never demonstrate that. Prop 8's language also excludes not- men [minor boys] and not-women [minor girls], along with polygamists ["a" man and "a" woman]. Voters in CA have the right to narrow their definition of marriage [SCOTUS just said that] as long as people are no disinfranchised re: the 14th Amendment. Since gays don't fall under the 14 as a protected class, then the argument is that the People of CA are fully within their rights to narrow the definition of marriage as they see fit. Currently prohibited from marriage in CA:

1. Gays....yes, it's still illegal for one month.

2. Minors. [until a NAMBLA judge seeks to lower the age limit]

3. Polygamists

4. Incest, though that alone was the only arrangment not specifically addressed in Prop 8.

 

I've already addressed your polygamy claim. No privilage exists to enjoy recognition of multiple concurrent marriages, so no disenfranchisement.

As for incest, it isn't the same thing as a ban based on the parties genders. So far, the Court considers the bans on incestuous marriages to have a rational basis. Removing the gender restriction does nothing to change that. These things are not interchangeable when ti comes to the interpretation of the law, which deals with the facts of the specific case before the Court. Pretending that same-sex marriage, polygamy, incest, bestiality, child molestation, and wanting to marry inanimate objects are all the same when it comes to interpreting the law may be convenient from the standpoint of your propaganda, but it's really pretty stupid and not the least bit true. Have fun in the losing battle to convince people otherwise.

 

The vote of the people cannot deprive people of constitutional rights. Sorry.

Nope, they started in again immediately. Read here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/justice/california-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

<tired old bs removed>

 

This Sunday is ramping up to be the best parade ever....haven't been to one in years but I think we may go to this one.

Nothing like seeing thousands of happy people in love celebrating.