Why is the government in marriage at all?

Notice how you never got around to actually contradicting a thing I said? What do you disagree with in my statement. You always disagree with anything I say. You just never get around to actually specifying what it is that you disagree with.

 

The whole point of this argument is to change that. You can't be opposed to gay marriage because its the current law. thats not a valid argument for changing a law.

 

You're quite wrong.

The ban on same sex marriage in California was ruled unconstitutional. It has however been given a stay until the defendants have exhausted their appeals.

Moreover, it appears that the prop 8 case is making its way toward the Supreme Court. Where if decided that the constitutional ban on same sex marriage is indeed unconstitutional will in effect change the law on a national level.

 

Your a freakin joke. I pointed out that California has marriage limited to a man and a woman and that DOMA applies in all 50 states, and you reply

And now you admit it above. Do you people have even a shred of integrity you can grasp for?

 

And then the appeals court stayed the decision to prevent it from having any effect upon the law, like I said. Do you think you could actually point out what it is that I am wrong about? I didnt think so.

 

Only because the Prop 8 supporters requested it, and the Ninth Circuit acted simply to prevent the legal chaos involved in allowing SSM to continue on unsure grounds. That was the reason given. Obviously their decision, if it upholds Walker's decision, will come into effect immediately.

 

So you have more integrity than us? Even though you wish to deny Americans their right to be happy? Good 'rebuttal'.

 

More than YOU. And your abandoning your previous claim when challenged, to move onto the next only further demonstrates this point. Grow some nads, defend the BS you spew here.

 

Dude, you are the one getting rude and violent. Have you noticed that nobody is on your side? My opinion is if you think something is factual, and everybody around you disagrees, you should probably reassess your interpretation.

 

What amazes me is constantly seeing the word "Guru" under the name "dixon76710".. obviously it's just a forum title, but it just seems to smack of irony...

 

you do understand that the ruling was made by a homosexual judge??

 

Which is no more relevant than a Christian judge ruling on prayer or religious freedom, or a married judge presiding over a divorce hearing.

 

????? Its not an "interpretation", but instead a grasp on relaity. Its a fact. If you have something to show otherwise, Ill take a look at it.

???? you make no sense. You admit they are trying to change it, but I am the one in an "imaginary world" for pointing out nothing has changed? Whatever. Youre all emotion and hormones. Logic, reason, rational discussion seems to be missing

 

Not as much as the irony of "contributor" appearing under your name.

 

So your argument for being against gay marriage is because that is the way it is now? And you think I am the one making no sense? All of the arguments you have presented make no sense. As pointed out by me, and literally every other recent poster.

 

Yes, and his ruling was attempted to be negated because of that. However, a heterosexual judge upheld Judge Walkers ability to make a decision on the case regardless of his sexuality.

 

Your wrong actually.

1. The ban on gay marriage is still unconstitutional.

2. The court decided that gay marriages would not begin again until the proponents of prop 8 had exhausted their appeals process.

3. As of yet, the proponents of prop8 have not received a reversal of Judge Walkers decision.

So yes, you are actually wrong. Gay marriage is legal in CA, they however have not started to provide same sex marriages against until the appeals process is finished.

 

Yeah, good one Dixon's brain.

 

No-one thinks you're logical

No-one thinks you're reasonable

No-one thinks you're rational.

In fact, I've learned you're all rhetoric. Rehashing the same tired accusations, floundering on semantics and irrelevant technicalities, wasting time with irrelevant points, ignoring valid questions... And I've also learned you accuse everyone else of what you yourself are ALWAYS doing. You're so well versed in these tactics it seems to be your only line of defence - but then the floundering is necessary to detract away from the sheer weakness of your position and er.. "points".

 

LOLOL!!! 1.Never made a statement about its constitutionality
2.thats what I said
3 no one claimed they had.

I asked what I was wrong about, Not if you would like to add anything.

 

Dont forget the abundance of court precedent Ive quoted, all supporting my view and directly contradicting yours.

 

The main one you most frequently referenced you've admitted is based on a faulty premise (1950's Oaklahoma laws), and should no longer be relevant.

Best to cite more up to date decisions I think?

 

Nope, Procreation is still fundamental to the survival of the species

So then use the Washington State decision cited from 2006

 

A fact that is irrelevant both legally (no law like the 50s Oaklahoma one exists today), and to the question of whether same sex marriage licenses should be issued.

Kay, post it then so we're all up to date. Then I can post Judge Walker's decision.

 

Actually, it has been CENTRAL to the dozens of court cases upholding the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman, because, like I said, procreation is STILL fundamental to the survival of the race, whether marriage is or not.

This makes the 8th post in this thread, quoting the 2006 Washington decision.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf