Proposition 8 overturned in California

[selfinflikted]

Riiight...the majority is only smart when they're voting for something you agree with.

Will of the people or not, I just don't think marriage needs to be a government issue.

Frankly, I don't care who you want to marry...just don't force me to honor a marriage that I don't believe in.

It's not YOU who we want to recognize our marriages. It's the law.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's not a federal government issue. It always has been a state issue. California voters decided. And now this judge has tried to undo what they decided.

They shouldn't have been voting on it to begin with.

If the law truly was unconstitutional, I would expect a judge to overturn it. Sometimes the will of the people is not in accordance with the constitution. I just don't think marriage is a constitutional right, for anyone.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's not a federal government issue. It always has been a state issue. California voters decided. And now this judge has tried to undo what they decided.

Yes, because Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional. Marriage is a state issue, until they overstep their bounds and start doing things unconstitutional - such as denying equal rights.

 

[Jase]

It's not a federal government issue. It always has been a state issue. California voters decided. And now this judge has tried to undo what they decided.

California voters cannot vote on law that violates the Federal Constitution. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend Zaac? Civil rights should also never be up for vote in the first place.

 

[Dogstar]

Dogstar, I just really don't care.

You could have saved us both a lot of time if you had just said that in the beginning, instead of trying to twist everything around.

But since I know that you "don't care" about it, by all means, carry on. But, you know, for future reference, if you really don't care about a topic next time, then don't spend so much time arguing it. Could give others the idea that you really do care.

 

[Jase]

You don't have to believe in it. I don't recall a part in God's word where He reached down from His throne and consulted with Jase or any other sinful man as to what would be sin.

Well, since you continue to act as God's mouthpiece, apparently he consulted with you.

And what age is that? 5?6?7? Do tell us at what age a person suddenly becomes accountable for his sin?

13

 

[Old Catholic Man]

It's not a federal government issue. It always has been a state issue. California voters decided. And now this judge has tried to undo what they decided.

Any state law that violates the U.S. Constitution is by definition a federal government issue.

T

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's not YOU who we want to recognize our marriages. It's the law.

On the contrary. Why do you suppose gays are fighting so hard for the "right" to marry? It's not for the purposes of saying they're married...they've been doing that for years. It's because they want the benefits that heterosexual couples receive from marriage. The only option I'd have as a business owner would be to get rid of ALL benefits for married people so that I wouldn't have to recognize a marriage that I don't view as being Godly.

 

[Jase]

Riiight...the majority is only smart when they're voting for something you agree with.

Unlike you guys, I don't order the impeachment of a judge just because I disagree with his verdict. No majority should ever have the right to vote to deny other people rights.

Will of the people or not, I just don't think marriage needs to be a government issue.

I agree, it shouldn't be - but it is. Marriage begins and ends with a state issued legal contract. Therefore, it's secular law that matters - not religious dogma.

Frankly, I don't care who you want to marry...just don't force me to honor a marriage that I don't believe in.

Nobody is asking you to honor anyone elses marriage. People are only asking that you let people have the same secular rights that you do. You wouldn't like it if liberals voted to remove your rights - so why should you vote to take away the rights of others?

 

[Jase]

They shouldn't have been voting on it to begin with.

If the law truly was unconstitutional, I would expect a judge to overturn it. Sometimes the will of the people is not in accordance with the constitution. I just don't think marriage is a constitutional right, for anyone.

There are a lot of things in the Constitution not explicitly listed as a right. That's the purpose of the Federal courts - to interpret the law. The founders intentionally made the Constitution vague and overly broad to accomodate future societal changes.

For example, the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution, but numerous cases have created it based on interpretation of the law.

 

[Zaac]

California voters cannot vote on law that violates the Federal Constitution. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend Zaac? Civil rights should also never be up for vote in the first place.

They didn't. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says everybody has the right to get married anymore than it says everyone has the right to drive a car. o why is that so hard for you to comprehend Jase?

You don't have a federal right to marry whomever you want. Those rights are set by the state and always have been.

There is no civil rights violation. Orientation doesn't have protected status.

 

[pgp_protector]

On the contrary. Why do you suppose gays are fighting so hard for the "right" to marry? It's not for the purposes of saying they're married...they've been doing that for years. It's because they want the benefits that heterosexual couples receive from marriage. The only option I'd have as a business owner would be to get rid of ALL benefits for married people so that I wouldn't have to recognize a marriage that I don't view as being Godly.

Are you saying you hire Ungodly People ?

 

[*Starlight*]

Riiight...the majority is only smart when they're voting for something you agree with.

Will of the people or not, I just don't think marriage needs to be a government issue.

Frankly, I don't care who you want to marry...just don't force me to honor a marriage that I don't believe in.

Of course marriage shouldn't be a government issue, but as long as it is a government issue, people should have equal access to it no matter what your personal religious beliefs say, because some people don't follow your religion.

 

[selfinflikted]

On the contrary. Why do you suppose gays are fighting so hard for the "right" to marry? It's not for the purposes of saying they're married...they've been doing that for years. It's because they want the benefits that heterosexual couples receive from marriage. The only option I'd have as a business owner would be to get rid of ALL benefits for married people so that I wouldn't have to recognize a marriage that I don't view as being Godly.

Well, that's too bad for you. If you work in the secular world, you have to play by the rules.

 

[Ayersy]

Obviously not per Gays and progressives. ONLY their opinions take power and authority. That's reality talking.



It defies intellectualism to redefine marriage to include same gender spouses. How absurd that two men think they can be husband and wife. Or, two husbands, or, two wives. Two women think they can be each other's wife? Or husband? Insanity is now called academic decision.



How do you keep the Gay Agendaists from invading your Synagouge and kicking you ignorant, intolerant, hateful anti-gay bigots out and from being members?



Oh really? Which Rabbinic Sage would agree with you on that? C'mon now, Jews are not hated the world over because they throw darts better than everyone else.



Per any rabbi that has ever lived, you are not able to make a choice unless you are given other things to choose.




Many are. The great Rabbi's speak well for we Christians.




Then I hope you will be there for us in the coming years when the Gay Agenda comes for our total submission. We will still reject it and them and we will be forced to suffer for this.

Hope to see a safe face in yours.

This basically applies to all of onemorequestion's posts.

 

[Jase]

They didn't. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says everybody has the right to get married anymore than it says everyone has the right to drive a car. o why is that so hard for you to comprehend Jase?

The Supreme Court has already declared marriage to be a "fundamental basic human right". That is federal law.

You don't have a federal right to marry whomever you want. Those rights are set by the state and always have been.

It's a federal issue when states violate the 14th Amendment.

There is no civil rights violation. Orientation doesn't have protected status.

Neither did blacks or women a few decades ago.

This case will change the face of the sexual orientation debate in this country. Ironically, we can thank you conservatives for bringing gay marriage to law - since without Prop 8, this wouldn't have reached the Federal courts anytime soon.

 

[Skaloop]

On the contrary. Why do you suppose gays are fighting so hard for the "right" to marry? It's not for the purposes of saying they're married...they've been doing that for years. It's because they want the benefits that heterosexual couples receive from marriage. The only option I'd have as a business owner would be to get rid of ALL benefits for married people so that I wouldn't have to recognize a marriage that I don't view as being Godly.

What exactly constitutes a Godly marriage?

And would you really screw over the 90% of your employees who are straight because of the 10% who are gay (using generally accepted demographics for those numbers)? Not very good business practice. You would soon have very few employees, and a lot of difficulty attracting new ones.

And still, this instance is not YOU being forced to honor a marriage you don't agree with, it's forcing your business to comply with the law. Just like any other business has to. But you are not your business.

 

[Cute Tink]

The Supreme Court has already declared marriage to be a "fundamental basic human right". That is federal law.

Could you cite the case please? I was not aware they had decided such a thing.

 

[trunks2k]

Could you cite the case please? I was not aware they had decided such a thing.

Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

 

[Cute Tink]

Loving v. Virginia.

Thank you. It is indeed exactly as you say.