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

[Warthogg]

I saw the N/A post after I had made mine. Sooooo i brought it over,

Wart



[QUOTE=N/A;203924]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.[/QUOTE]

'Marriage':

In a church/synagog/temple..... shouldn't the religion of that particular group guide who can be married in their church ??

Civil ceremony.................... shouldn't the laws of that state guide who can be married in a civil ceremony ??

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really had to work hard to give a shit enough to even make the post above.


Wart

[N/A]

'Marriage':

In a church/synagog/temple..... shouldn't the religion of that particular group guide who can be married in their church ??

Civil ceremony.................... shouldn't the laws of that state guide who can be married in a civil ceremony ??

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really had to work hard to give a shit enough to even make the post above.


Wart

That's the way I think it should be....and if it was, the homos would have to convince a church to marry them. Maybe those made up church guys, the Scientologist would do it????

Otherwise, let them have civil unions.

[Kadmos]

That's the way I think it should be....and if it was, the homos would have to convince a church to marry them. Maybe those made up church guys, the Scientologist would do it????

Otherwise, let them have civil unions.

All six Episcopal bishops in California made a statement against prop 8, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California voted against prop 8, the California Council of Churches opposed it, saying it violated religious freedom to bless such unions should churches wish to do so.

People don't seem to have much trouble locating religious organizations that are fine with doing the ceremony.

[rci2950]

the government shouldn't have anything to do with it,

[AK-J]

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.

Really dude? Why you got to assume that I'm some kind of bigot because I don't like the idea of the term "marriage" being the official legal designation for that type of legal contract? I'm more than willing to meet somewhere in the middle, and I'm the asshole?

Your type of response is exactly why you have a lot of people against the idea of legally binding civil unions between homosexuals. You're attacking someone that doesn't have a problem with it except that don't want it called "marriage" but something like "Civil Unions".

And hell, as others have said, call all legally binding domestic partnership unions between adults "civil unions" and leave the "marriage" part up to their places of worship. It's the all or nothing approach by both sides that gets us nowhere.

[N/A]

All six Episcopal bishops in California made a statement against prop 8, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California voted against prop 8, the California Council of Churches opposed it, saying it violated religious freedom to bless such unions should churches wish to do so.

People don't seem to have much trouble locating religious organizations that are fine with doing the ceremony.

Ok, show me where they have been doing and sanctified it.

[insider]

Let the queers marry, they'll die off soon enough.

[Kadmos]

Really dude? Why you got to assume that I'm some kind of bigot because I don't like the idea of the term "marriage" being the official legal designation for that type of legal contract? I'm more than willing to meet somewhere in the middle, and I'm the asshole?

Your type of response is exactly why you have a lot of people against the idea of legally binding civil unions between homosexuals. You're attacking someone that doesn't have a problem with it except that don't want it called "marriage" but something like "Civil Unions".

And hell, as others have said, call all legally binding domestic partnership unions between adults "civil unions" and leave the "marriage" part up to their places of worship. It's the all or nothing approach by both sides that gets us nowhere.

First, sorry, didn't mean for it to sound directed to much at you but just at those who had a problem with using the word "marriage".

I'm not trying to call you a bigot, I seriously wonder why that word causes such an issue?

To me it's just a word like any other, used to define a concept. The concept here is obviously a "joining", whether that be ketchup bottles, an 18 year old female stripper to an 87 year old man, or two old women...the concept is the same. So why not just use the word and not worry about it? Why make a second word to describe essentially the same thing? I just don't see the point in that.

Ok, show me where they have been doing and sanctified it.

I honestly doubt you could find a single state that didn't have a least a dozen or more religious figures willing to bless a gay union

[N/A]

I honestly doubt you could find a single state that didn't have a least a dozen or more religious figures willing to bless a gay union

The "figures" maybe...the official church, maybe not so much. I wouldn't know, but it would go against most religous teachings here in the U.S.

[tank_monkey]

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

First of all, I find it intriguing that all of the Prop 8 opponents paint it as some sort of SCHEME by a few religious nut 'haters'/bigots. They seem to ignore the fact that

52% of THE CALIFORNIA VOTERS VOTED FOR IT. That's slightly more than HALF the State. How do you guys ignore that you're calling one out of every two people in California a Bigot? You liberal morons can't wrap your head around that stat, can you?

Also for ALL of those guys who bash California for being so liberal, you DO REALIZE that the majority of Californians voted FOR Prop 8. The people who voted for it are actively being undercut by a very vocal and well funded MINORITY within the state. But the fact that MOST CALIFORNIANS voted a certain way is indicative that the ultra left are NOT the vast majority within the state.

Whether right or wrong in the long run, these are facts which people are ignoring

[Warthogg]

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.

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.

Did anyone notice this ruling is by a panel from the 9th CIRCUIT ???? The 9th would force marriage between an adulterous orangutang and a celibate anteater and never raise an eyebrow !!

Next this is only a THREE JUDGE PANEL and only TWO voted for this ..........not even all the shirt-birds that make up the 9th.

Maybe not completely meaningless but certainly meaning little.


Wart

[Kadmos]

The "figures" maybe...the official church, maybe not so much. I wouldn't know, but it would go against most religous teachings here in the U.S.

Well, we don't have an Official Church in the US

But yeah, it's going to go against most mainstream religions, but certian sects take a different view, Lutherans, Episcopal, Quakers, some Baptist, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews all make some official allowances for those congregations who wish to bless such unions.

[Kadmos]

First of all, I find it intriguing that all of the Prop 8 opponents paint it as some sort of SCHEME by a few religious nut 'haters'/bigots. They seem to ignore the fact that

52% of THE CALIFORNIA VOTERS VOTED FOR IT. That's slightly more than HALF the State. How do you guys ignore that you're calling one out of every two people in California a Bigot? You liberal morons can't wrap your head around that stat, can you?

Also for ALL of those guys who bash California for being so liberal, you DO REALIZE that the majority of Californians voted FOR Prop 8. The people who voted for it are actively being undercut by a very vocal and well funded MINORITY within the state. But the fact that MOST CALIFORNIANS voted a certain way is indicative that the ultra left are NOT the vast majority within the state.

Whether right or wrong in the long run, these are facts which people are ignoring

The "vocal" minority was 47% of the vote...of the 13.4 million votes had half a million voted the other way it would have been struck down.

Or put a different way, something as important as a constitutional amendment was passed by a 5% margin on a vote where 2% of the votes were invalid or blank.

Had it been a Federal amendment it would have failed for lack of a 2/3rds majority.

[tank_monkey]

The "vocal" minority was 47% of the vote...of the 13.4 million votes had half a million voted the other way it would have been struck down.

Or put a different way, something as important as a constitutional amendment was passed by a 5% margin on a vote where 2% of the votes were invalid or blank.

Had it been a Federal amendment it would have failed for lack of a 2/3rds majority.

But the 'name callers' are calling 52% of the California Population "Christian Bigots"...... That's the point that is lost on you. I've NEVER heard of the majority of the state of California called "Christian Right Wing Bigots" before. But that's the LOGIC that the left seems to be pushing. Your other points are good, but like usual, they are not what I am talking about.

[Kadmos]

But the 'name callers' are calling 52% of the California Population "Christian Bigots"...... That's the point that is lost on you. I've NEVER heard of the majority of the state of California called "Christian Right Wing Bigots" before. But that's the LOGIC that the left seems to be pushing. Your other points are good, but like usual, they are not what I am talking about.

Fair enough.

I think the calling people "Christian bigots" is a bit over the top, a lot of Christians have no problem with gay marriage. And I'm sure a lot of non-Christians are in fact bigots

Although to be fair, trying to legislate other peoples marriages is, well, being a bigot.

I do see your point, the "mainstream" view is opposed to gay marriage. That neither makes it right, nor legal to single out those couples though.

I think that is the real logic of the left, that some issues stand as a sort of litmus test on the state of our freedoms. Do we allow Neo-Nazis free speech even though we hate what they say? Do we allow abortion although we love life and children? Do we allow gays full right although what they do disgusts many of us?

Not to say the left isn't also hypocritical about it..as in, do we allow freedom to carry arms although we hate the damage they can do? Or why do we defend Nambla's free speech so diligently about something nearly everyone considers disgusting, yet we berate Christian groups who want to teach abstinence?

I do think it's the duty of the majority to protect the rights of the minority, but the left does take the whole "support the underdog" thing to a sometimes rather absurd level.

[tank_monkey]

I do think it's the duty of the majority to protect the rights of the minority, but the left does take the whole "support the underdog" thing to a sometimes rather absurd level.

Which includes LYING? Yes, Yes, I agree the LEFT does that. I can't count how many leftists smugly condemn the Prop 8 supporters as a bunch of 'minority bigots'. They can't wrap their head around the fact that MAJORITY did this, NOT a small minority. IF they want to smugly call people bigots, they're going to have to call EVERY OTHER PERSON THEY SEE on the street a bigot. But I guarantee they won't. They NEED to feel as if they're in the majority...... but they are not. That is the 'delusion' I condemn. Not the merits for or against the issue. The BLINDNESS of the left is maddening.

At least ME as a gun owner, don't delude myself into thinking we're a majority in this country. The non gun owning majority CAN (I'm not saying they WILL), screw with all gun owners, since WE are a minority in this country. A Large and powerful minority, but a minority none the less. I'm not idiotic enough to claim over and over again that we are in the majority because the facts don't support that. But the left has no problems doing just that for THEIR viewpoints.

[5.56NATO]

Everyone has the same apparent right to marriage. A man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man. There is no violation of anyones rights.