"Equal Rights" is a joke

No, you simply presume to know the motivations of millions of voters. Conveniently the motivations that support your assertions. And I was not refering to the motivations of voters but instead the rationals presented in the court cases that upheld the constitutionality of many of those referendums and legislative enactments.

 

And without supporting evidence so do you. You are claiming that overturning Prop 8 relied on arguments which were "quite successful in court". It didn't , it was a up-or-down voter initiative that passed 52-48%

However the motivations of those driving people to the polls was examined during the Prop 8 trail and that was found to be based on animus and lies.

Utter rubbish and bold faced lies you specifically said:

This was never mentioned as a qualifying integer in the enactment of the proposition, it was a purely procedural action according to the laws governing California initiatives.

As far as the California SSC is concerned their decision that same sex marriages should be recognized still stands and has never been challenged on the merits.

Stop pretending that it has when you know it's a lie.

 

nope, nowhere in california law is the ability/intention to procreate required in order to get married.

DOMA was declared unconstitutional in FEDERAL court. it is making it's way to the supreme court. I'm sorry you don't like gays, and think they shouldn't marry, but it's going to happen, despite your best effort, and failed arguments.

 

The California State Supreme Court thinks the exact same thing.

 

Which part of

did you not understand?

No, QUITE clearly I am claiming

You just quoted it einstein

Yeah, you and the homo judge just presume you know BOTH what motivated them to go to the polls AND why they voted the way they did. Absurd

???? Where is the lie einstein?

Courts are supposed to determine what is constitutional, not their views of what "should be". That is the role of legislators.

 

You're right, equal rights is a joke. It all comes down to semantics. No one humanoid is equal to another humanoid. What these libs should realize is that we all should be given an 'EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" and not equal rights.

How is a liberal dirtbag sponging off the government tit 'EQUAL' to say a multi billionaire Conservative who owns multiple businesses? Does the dirtbag have an equal right to the billionaire's money? I don't think so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that people have an equal right to free hospital care, or to free housing for example? It doesn't, ergo this equal rights crap is just that....its crap!

 

I agree with this totally........it's the only thing that makes sense...Couples will call themselves whatever they want, if it is not sanctioned by God in your opinion then so be it..
However,,,I get the quirky feeling some people will still find something to complain about though...

 

No one claimed it was.

 

Nah, I would just feel that its a shame that our government cant encourage mothers and fathers to provide and care for the children they create together in a stable home with both parents, because it offends the gays.

 

your entire argument relies on it.

 

No, you just again and again and again claim that it does.

 

Still, you continue to inject it as some highly relevant or significant factor; so you shouldn't respond as if others must claim otherwise.

 

Stop calling me Einstein,...........Prat!

No, a mountain of discovery and on-the-witness-stand testimony uncovered, at trial, the depth of misinformation and animus employed by the prop's proponents to get people to the polls. Did you ever see that absurd "Gathering Storm" video.

Yes absurd that you you can be offered this information for the best part of a year and still be totally blind to it.

"California is one of those 46 where marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because of their unique potential of procreation."

It's right there...Prat!

 

Its a fact, not a lie. Californias, less than 5 month period of allowing same sex marriages doesnt change the fact that marriage is NOW limited to a man and a woman.

 

Yes but it's not because of their unique potential of procreation as you have blatantly claimed. It is because and merely because of the passing of proposition 8.

No court in California has ever concluded that proposition 8 should stand on the substantial merit of it's claim to the "unique potential of procreation", it's substantive merit has never been debated or an issue (however the motivation behind it has been and it lost).

The only merit it has is procedural in that it was passed according to the correct procedure for propositions in California, that's all.

By virtue of the original decision by the California SSC that same-sex marriages should be recognised in order to comply with gender discrimination articles within the California State Constitution (and by virtue of the continued recognition of existing same sex marriages in California and those performed outside California prior to the passing of Prop Eight) the biological ability or potential to procreate is not a substantive feature related to access to the marriage contract in California, it just isn't

 

Actually, the OP makes a valid point. You already have equal rights under the law, and you are the one that is trying to change the existing law. So just as pro-abortionists constantly tell pro-lifers, the burden of proof is on you. And your only argument seems to be "what difference does it make?" If it shouldn't make a difference to us, why does it make a difference to you?

 

Nonsense. The purpose of Californias limitation of marriage to a man and a woman, that has existed as long as Californias has been a state, because only a man and a woman can procreate, doesnt suddenly change because of Prop 8.

 

It's not nonsense it's fact. Nowhere in California marriage law is the desire propensity or potential to procreate even mentioned.

Same sex couples married in California are still considered married as are same sex couples resident there who married in other states prior to the enactment of the proposition.

The exact wording of the proposition as it appeared on the ballot reads:

"
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

There is no mention of procreation there.

Proposition 8 is the only thing preventing same sex couples from marrying in that state. If overturned California will revert to the status quo which includes state recognition of same-sex marriages.

You can read all kinds of personal ideas about "purpose" into the debate if you please but stop making out that your position is directly supported, endorsed or enshrined in or by California law, it isn't.

 

nope, I've showed again and again and again, how idiotic your argument is, and how it doesn't apply to marriage.

 

No, not really.

This isn't about 'me' per se; so get you terminology and perspective right. This is about equal rights for ALL Americans. Any claim I make here, do not pertain exclusively to myself.

I'm not sure of the context you are referring to; if you want to talk about abortion, then start a thread on it. Equal rights for homosexual (especially as it relates to marriage) is not something that exists universally (not yet).

If you think that is 'my' argument, you haven't been paying attention. It seems that your perception of what I've been saying is WAY OFF. (Sorry that you haven't truly comprehended the things I've implied overall.)

It's clear that you don't fathom what I and others have been discussion. I can't 'fix' that for you all at once; even so, I hope you do understand at some point in the near future.

 

Good point!

I WANT this argument to stay in the COURTS until ALL Americans have the EQUAL right to marriage.

As far as what some are saying in this and various fora and blogs... the opinions can be catalysts for thought and discussion, but it is past time for this and related issues to be resolved 'legally'. And until people have EQUAL RIGHTS, the issue will NOT be resolved.

 

Had there been no proposition 8, California would of had same sex marriage because and merely because of A San Francisco Mayor and 4 old guys in black robes who thought they knew better than the legislators, why they had legislated to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

 

Oooooh you and the California courts know you are only concerned about homosexuals getting the unequal rights of marriage, denied to the unmarried. Not "ALL Americans"

 

Be realistic, dixon. That foolishness you dangle before your own intellect may seem reasonable to yourself, but don't expect others to take it seriously.

Even so, there is NOTHING wrong with people fighting for what they think/believe is right. And if laws are to affect homosexual people (in America), then those laws should be EQUAL to those that are applied to all (under the U.S. Constitution).

 

Gotta love those checks and balances and all Republican appointees too.

Perhaps those Republicans appointed them because they trusted the future into their hands?

Who'da thunk it???