CALIFORNIA PROP 8 STRUCK DOWN -- The Mormons are PISSED!

[LAGC]

San Francisco (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled against California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, arguing the ban unconstitutionally singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination.

In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state's Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment.

"Very soon, Proposition 8 will be gone forever," said Kristin Perry, one of two women who challenged the ban in federal courts along with a male same-sex couple. "Today marks the culmination of what has been a transformational year."
..
..
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which came under fire for its strong support of the referendum, said through a spokesman that it "regrets" the ruling.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

Yeah, regret it all you want, bigots. Your out-dated "Christian" values are becoming a thing of the past, just like your polygamy practices. This county is moving FORWARD, without your help. This makes 7 states that now recognize same-sex marriage, plus D.C. And 5 additional states that support same-sex unions.

That pesky 14th Amendment strikes again. Now we'll see what the SCOTUS thinks. I bet they don't even hear the case, or if they do, 6-3 decision in favor of equal rights.

HATERS GONNA HATE.

[insider]

All this proves is your votes don't count. Silly faggot dicks are for chicks!

[NAPOTS]

LAGC, you liberals seem really hung up on making sure that gays get their wish.

I personally don't really give a shit but they sure as hell aren't getting their permission from me.

What are you trying to tell us LAGC, are there wedding bells in your future?

[Mark Ducati]

So what's next... marrying your dog? Your rose bush?

[Richard Simmons]

"Moving forward"? More like circling the drain.

[El Laton Caliente]

So what's next... marrying your dog? Your rose bush?

NAMBLA... enough said? They have already floated lowering the age of concent to 12 or 14...

[abpt1]

I really dont care either way so

[Sergi762]

Oh not again with the progressive bullsh*t...Between you and Printerman..oy

[LAGC]

All this proves is your votes don't count.

Ah, c'mon. How many times have I heard around here that we aren't a democracy, but a constitutional republic? A simple majority (52% of the voters) shouldn't be able to deny equal rights to a minority. That's what the constitution is for, protecting minority rights, no matter how unpopular.

I mean, slavery was once legal, but the Fourteenth Amendment put an end to that business. No reason it can't keep delivering more freedom for more people as our evolving moral zeitgeist expands over time.

[circuits]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

Yeah, regret it all you want, bigots. Your out-dated "Christian" values are becoming a thing of the past, just like your polygamy practices.

How can you support gay marriage, and not support plural marriage? Don't sister-wives have rights, too?

[rci2950]

Canada been marry'n gays for ages. They are like normal people up here.

[Full Otto]

So what's next... marrying your dog? Your rose bush?

http://www.huliq.com/10164/woman-hop...rying-it-video
"Yes, I'm in love with a 107 year old building! Yes, ITS A GAY MARRIAGE! ..................................................
.......The building is the site of a former Occupy Seattle protest in which Aivaz and 200 other activists sought to occupy in protest.

[5.56NATO]

You can call it anything you want, but recorded history says marriage is between man and woman. Anything else is just that, something else.

[AK-J]

IMO, I don't have a problem with gays having domestic partnership rights (IE hospital visitation rights, property rights [inheritance] etc.). I just don't like it being called "marriage".

[Goodman]

Ah, c'mon. How many times have I heard around here that we aren't a democracy, but a constitutional republic? A simple majority (52% of the voters) shouldn't be able to deny equal rights to a minority.

For the luva......!

No one is denying anyone anything!
Gays, lesbians, triads, transgenders....YOU NAME IT..... they are all perfectly able to marry persons of the opposite sex just like anyone else! No one is being denied the ability to marry, though some folks want to change the definition of marriage.

All those other things, unions of varied behavioral groups and unmixed genders, call them what you will, are not 'marriage' and the drive to define them as such is just belligerent whining.

Of course the Momos are pissed. The courts are telling us something is something it is not- they are legislating.....again.

[N/A]

Ya just gotta know that marxist have to destroy religion because the marxist can't let the masses have something to believe in other than the state. We have a socialist government and a marxist president and still our little marxist wants to destroy all our culture and beliefs.

[mriddick]

Courts should not be so quick to overturn the will of the people. IMO it was going to take one maybe 2 votes at the most before California OK'ed gay marriage through the will of the people. Now it's going to be several generations of people fighting the issue if for no other reason then the gov't told them it was going to be... As in the abortion debate if the courts would step back and let the will of the people work the issue would work it's own way through.

Although I will note just a few days ago we had people happy the courts overturned the legislature in NC so if the philosophy works in one case it should in all shouldn't it... This is why we lose some much, we are not able to see the effects past the hot button issue of the day.

[Kadmos]

IMO, I don't have a problem with gays having domestic partnership rights (IE hospital visitation rights, property rights [inheritance] etc.). I just don't like it being called "marriage".

Why?

Who cares what it's called?

Does it actually make any difference to anyone whatsoever aside from those actually involved in the marriage?

Really I don't understand that take on this issue, isn't this the courts protecting individual freedoms?

Is it simply because it's "icky"? ...no offense but I've seen some of the pictures of you guys and the thought of ya'll having sex is kinda icky. I'm fairly certain my parents had sex and I find that rather icky and don't want to think on it, but it doesn't give me the right to say they shouldn't be married.

[N/A]

Only thing I agree with is that it isn't the federal gov.'s place to be involved in marriage. Marriage is commonly, and by long practice in this country, the provence of 'church', not gov. Leave it up to the people and their church to perform weddings. As for other types of unions, let each state's citizen decide on what they want as civil unions.

[mriddick]

For me (not being a libertarian) I think laws should be more about what's best for society. Granted arguments can be made gay marriage is good for society I just think it would be best if "sold" that way. I also think any law that increases costs to the public should be paid for. I can see this increasing costs as now state and city governments will be picking up the tab for the partners which gets passed along to the taxpayers. IMO it's things like this where the costs are just "added on" continually that has been one (of many) reason for the budget mess we have today.