same-sex marriage ban overturned

[aumd03 2]

I read in a recent article where California courts recently overturned a same sex marriage ban.

Question is, do you think many states will push for same sex marriage laws on the ballot with the next election to pull out conservative voters? If I remember right, several states did that in the last Presidential election and most were approved overwhelmingly and thought to be an issue of importance bringing conservative voters to the polls.

[Tiger Al 0]

I read in a recent article where California courts recently overturned a same sex marriage ban.

Question is, do you think many states will push for same sex marriage laws on the ballot with the next election to pull out conservative voters? If I remember right, several states did that in the last Presidential election and most were approved overwhelmingly and thought to be an issue of importance bringing conservative voters to the polls.

I dunno. It may be about time for the cons to trot out another flag burning amendment. We'll see.

[tiger88 934]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

[autigeremt 6,717]

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so depressed about being a man or a woman that they have to go against nature to be happy. To me, over all these things, that's what is sad about it the most.

[Shire5k 19]

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so depressed about being a man or a woman that they have to go against nature to be happy. To me, over all these things, that's what is sad about it the most.

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so unwilling to realize that homosexuality is not a choice that someone just randomly makes one day. How is going with how nature wired your brain "going against nature"?

Also, you obviously don't get homosexuality AT ALL...since you think it stems from depression. I've never met a gay person who was more (or less) depressed than any other "normal" member of society.

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so depressed about being a man or a woman that they have to go against nature to be happy. To me, over all these things, that's what is sad about it the most.

Please tell me you don't actually believe what you just typed.

[autigeremt 6,717]

I don't get it..............that's the best answer I can give you guys.

I personally could care less if someone wants to be gay. I just don't see how anyone would argue with Man and Woman and why we were created, or generated to be Man with Man, or Woman with Woman. Some people ARE WAY TOO emotional here. Good grief.

[autigeremt 6,717]

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so depressed about being a man or a woman that they have to go against nature to be happy. To me, over all these things, that's what is sad about it the most.

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so unwilling to realize that homosexuality is not a choice that someone just randomly makes one day. How is going with how nature wired your brain "going against nature"?

Also, you obviously don't get homosexuality AT ALL...since you think it stems from depression. I've never met a gay person who was more (or less) depressed than any other "normal" member of society.

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Typical Bammer regardless the subject. I have witnessed these people, and I have had discussions with the people I'm referring to. As I stated above, how is it that we have both sexes and it not be the NATURAL order of human beings? Slide the Bible aside and look at it as it is. I'm in no way interjecting religion, so don't "assume" that either.

Facts are facts! People are made one way or the other. You either have male or female genes (Y or X). What would make a person desire to marry or be with another one of the same sex based on the facts??? It's just a puzzle to me.

You can blast me all you want!!!!!! It won't do you one bit of good!

[tiger88 934]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

[Tiger Al 0]

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so depressed about being a man or a woman that they have to go against nature to be happy. To me, over all these things, that's what is sad about it the most.

What's sad is that many Americans (people in general) are so unwilling to realize that homosexuality is not a choice that someone just randomly makes one day. How is going with how nature wired your brain "going against nature"?

Also, you obviously don't get homosexuality AT ALL...since you think it stems from depression. I've never met a gay person who was more (or less) depressed than any other "normal" member of society.

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Typical Bammer regardless the subject. I have witnessed these people, and I have had discussions with the people I'm referring to. As I stated above, how is it that we have both sexes and it not be the NATURAL order of human beings? Slide the Bible aside and look at it as it is. I'm in no way interjecting religion, so don't "assume" that either.

Facts are facts! People are made one way or the other. You either have male or female genes (Y or X). What would make a person desire to marry or be with another one of the same sex based on the facts??? It's just a puzzle to me.

You can blast me all you want!!!!!! It won't do you one bit of good!

I would offer that it's not for me to decide why anyone is attracted to whoever they're attracted to. It's none of my business why you've been attracted to any of the people you've chosen to date or marry, is it? Why should you want to make it your business who I choose to date or marry?

Do you think that you have the right and/or the responsibility to make those decisions for me or I for you?

[Tiger Al 0]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

If left to popular vote, when do you think slavery would've been abolished? What should be done if popular vote decided that a certain religious group of Americans weren't allowed to own firearms? Should it be left at that or should a court rightfully decide whether that law, decided by popular vote, was indeed Constitutionally legal?

[tiger88 934]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

If left to popular vote, when do you think slavery would've been abolished? What should be done if popular vote decided that a certain religious group of Americans weren't allowed to own firearms? Should it be left at that or should a court rightfully decide whether that law, decided by popular vote, was indeed Constitutionally legal?

1st question- who knows?

2nd- pure conjecture and not worth pondering on

3rd- can you be more specific, i.e.how does not allowing gay people to marry violate their constitutional rights?.

Like I said rather clearly I think that this is one issue that can decided by the people and it was jmo.

[Tiger Al 0]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

If left to popular vote, when do you think slavery would've been abolished? What should be done if popular vote decided that a certain religious group of Americans weren't allowed to own firearms? Should it be left at that or should a court rightfully decide whether that law, decided by popular vote, was indeed Constitutionally legal?

1st question- who knows?

2nd- pure conjecture and not worth pondering on

3rd- can you be more specific, i.e.how does not allowing gay people to marry violate their constitutional rights?.

Like I said rather clearly I think that this is one issue that can decided by the people and it was jmo.

1st answer- Nice punt. Considering that 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation we had Jim Crow laws it took the Civil Rights Act to fully bestow legal rights to millions of Americans, it's a safe bet that it would've been a very long time.

2nd- Conjecture in its specific details, but not in its general theme which asks the question; Is it Constitutional to abbreviate the rights a certain group of citizens based on association?

3rd- Who does the US Constitution give the authority to regulate marriage? The states, under the 10th amendment. It was ruled by the California Supreme Court that the ban violated that states Constitution.

I understand that it's jyo, I'm just asking you to explore why.

[WinCrimson 61]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

If left to popular vote, when do you think slavery would've been abolished? What should be done if popular vote decided that a certain religious group of Americans weren't allowed to own firearms? Should it be left at that or should a court rightfully decide whether that law, decided by popular vote, was indeed Constitutionally legal?

1st question- who knows?

2nd- pure conjecture and not worth pondering on

3rd- can you be more specific, i.e.how does not allowing gay people to marry violate their constitutional rights?.

Like I said rather clearly I think that this is one issue that can decided by the people and it was jmo.

This post reeks of "shoddy lawyering."

[tiger88 934]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

If left to popular vote, when do you think slavery would've been abolished? What should be done if popular vote decided that a certain religious group of Americans weren't allowed to own firearms? Should it be left at that or should a court rightfully decide whether that law, decided by popular vote, was indeed Constitutionally legal?

1st question- who knows?

2nd- pure conjecture and not worth pondering on

3rd- can you be more specific, i.e.how does not allowing gay people to marry violate their constitutional rights?.

Like I said rather clearly I think that this is one issue that can decided by the people and it was jmo.

1st answer- Nice punt. Considering that 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation we had Jim Crow laws it took the Civil Rights Act to fully bestow legal rights to millions of Americans, it's a safe bet that it would've been a very long time.

2nd- Conjecture in its specific details, but not in its general theme which asks the question; Is it Constitutional to abbreviate the rights a certain group of citizens based on association?

3rd- Who does the US Constitution give the authority to regulate marriage? The states, under the 10th amendment. It was ruled by the California Supreme Court that the ban violated that states Constitution.

I understand that it's jyo, I'm just asking you to explore why.

Well, maybe the people of California will end up rallying to get a state constitutional amendment going on this subject.

[tiger88 934]

The shame here is that california voters voted against gay marriage and some judge has decided to step in and do this. This gives more ammo to those wanting a constituational ammendment.

Too bad Plessy v. Ferguson was overrulled too, huh?

Why didn't you throw in the price of eggs in China while you were drawing that parallel?

The two are entirely different. I don't think popular vote should determine all things but I think this is something that can be determined that way. As far as I'm concerned the judge should have let the people speak on this one. Jmo.

Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make?

If left to popular vote, when do you think slavery would've been abolished? What should be done if popular vote decided that a certain religious group of Americans weren't allowed to own firearms? Should it be left at that or should a court rightfully decide whether that law, decided by popular vote, was indeed Constitutionally legal?

1st question- who knows?

2nd- pure conjecture and not worth pondering on

3rd- can you be more specific, i.e.how does not allowing gay people to marry violate their constitutional rights?.

Like I said rather clearly I think that this is one issue that can decided by the people and it was jmo.

This post reeks of "shoddy lawyering."

Oh, my. It seems I have stepped between the sanctity of wc and his man crush on edwards. Hell hath no fury like a man with a crush scorned. Is it too late to offer complete apologies and beg for forgiveness, win?

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Damn Republican appointed judges.

[tiger88 934]

Thats not funny.

Seriously, I'm not overly passionate about this subject. I am fairly liberal on social issues. However, I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, period. I'm not big on ammending the constitution, but it wouldn't bother me if they did on this one now that I see that courts are willing to override the opinion of the populace on the subject.

[Tiger Al 0]

However, I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, period.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

[tiger88 934]

However, I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, period.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

It feels right and it is what is natural. Man and woman unite together very possibly producing offspring and furthering the human race. Man and man or woman and woman unite, no offspring are produced, and the species dies away.

Like I said, I'm not overly passionate about this. I'm not going to be out carrying "the end is near" signs at some rally if this starts spreading. You obviously feel differently than I do and more power to you. I will continue if you must or if you feel like you are going to be able to "prove" something here.

[Tiger Al 0]

However, I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, period.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

It feels right and it is what is natural. Man and woman unite together very possibly producing offspring and furthering the human race. Man and man or woman and woman unite, no offspring are produced, and the species dies away.

Like I said, I'm not overly passionate about this. I'm not going to be out carrying "the end is near" signs at some rally if this starts spreading. You obviously feel differently than I do and more power to you. I will continue if you must or if you feel like you are going to be able to "prove" something here.

I'm just asking questions, not trying to prove or win anything.

I'm sure you'll agree that a man and a woman can produce offspring without ever being married. I'm also reasonably sure you'd agree that the sole purpose for sex isn't to produce children. But, my question wasn't about sex, it was about marriage. What, in your opinion, makes a marriage?

[tiger88 934]

However, I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, period.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

It feels right and it is what is natural. Man and woman unite together very possibly producing offspring and furthering the human race. Man and man or woman and woman unite, no offspring are produced, and the species dies away.

Like I said, I'm not overly passionate about this. I'm not going to be out carrying "the end is near" signs at some rally if this starts spreading. You obviously feel differently than I do and more power to you. I will continue if you must or if you feel like you are going to be able to "prove" something here.

I'm just asking questions, not trying to prove or win anything.

I'm sure you'll agree that a man and a woman can produce offspring without ever being married. I'm also reasonably sure you'd agree that the sole purpose for sex isn't to produce children. But, my question wasn't about sex, it was about marriage. What, in your opinion, makes a marriage?

Actually, I did answer your question. Maybe I didn't give you the answer you wanted for your fishing expedition, but I answered it.

If you have something to say, just say it. This could go on for days and as I have mentioned, I'm not overly excited about this issue. Of course if you did that it would look like you are trying to prove something, which you are, despite your denials. Its called an opinion Al. I see where you are headed and you have an argument that many might agree with. Not the majority though in one of the top liberal states in the nation, where they voted this down, only to be overturned by a judge.

To me, gay marriage is one thing that can be decided on by popular vote. There is no great travesty committed one way or the other. Let the people decide. This way, once in a while, we can continue to kid ourselves that we live in a democracy.

[quietfan 233]

Another debate that's raged on AUN and across society seemingly forever...but to re-state my opinion once again:

I think government should only be in the legal contract business, and domestic partnerships should be handled legally like business partnerships. I.e., from the government standpoint, contractual partnerships cannot be affected or limited because of race, gender, religious belief, ethnicity, number of partners, sexual orientation, etc.

If such partners also want to join into something they call religious wedlock, that falls under the domain of their particular religion and not the government. Religions may establish for themselves what they want to call "holy matrimony" within their beliefs, and the government's only involvement would be to safeguard individuals from abuses and outrages such as occurred in the polygamous Texas cult in the name of "marriage". (Of course, the problem in that and similar cases is that the victims were neither consenting nor adult.) Such religious marriages, however, would have no civil standing any more than being "baptized", "confirmed" or "bar mitzvah"ed carries any legal significance.

[CCTAU 3,350]

NO GAY MARRIAGE.

But I do think we need to be able to draft an agreement between two people that would allow for the same legal responsibilities to be shared by any 2 people, regardless of sex. But to call the agreement a marriage is a slap in the face to marriage. Any two people should be able to draw up a legal agreement that states they have rights to their belongings, inheritance, and decision making powers in case of emergency. I think that would suffice for most gay people. Just don't call it marriage and dress up like Tinkerbell to have a wedding.

[autigeremt 6,717]

I agree with the last two posts. That's all I have to say about this issue, because there's really no right answer to gay marriage in today's society. Gays want the religious version of marriage, even though the majority of religions teach against it, by having the courts and the legislature decide for them. This pressures the church to adhere to the law of government and not the law of their religious beliefs.

Let's see what happens and agree to disagree.