California Supreme Court Rules that Separate is NOT Equal

[HannahBanana]

Yes, there is great freedom in America, MrGhost. Unfortunately, people like you are trying to limit that freedom only to those who think exactly like you do. How exactly can you think that people are "free" at all when you want them to think a certain way in order for them to be "free"?

 

[LittleNipper]

Way to totally miss the point of his post. He was talking about this Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.

A parody is a joke. His god is but a joke. My LORD and SAVIOR is no joke.

 

[wanderingone]

THERE IS GREAT FREEDOM IN AMERICA


You Are Created in His Image. He is a individual and so are you.

How to American religious right wingers explain to those they try to convert in various countries of the world explain this bizarre link they make between god and America?

 

[HannahBanana]

A parody is a joke. His god is but a joke. My LORD and SAVIOR is no joke.

Can you prove that your "Lord and Savior" is not a joke? Seriously, do you honestly think that there is zero chance that the entire Bible was thought up as a giant prank by some bored Jews?

Also, can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? If so, then I'd like to see that proof. Just because the FSM is said to be a parody doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.

 

[SiderealExalt]

THERE IS GREAT FREEDOM IN AMERICA


You Are Created in His Image. He is a individual and so are you.
He respects the individual and will not interfere with a persons right to choose Good or Evil. Money or fame. He has left in your hands, all the options.
In America You have the right to be Right or Wrong to Put Ford Hubcaps on your Chevy Truck if U want to. Or soda pop on your cornflakes.

If you want to commit a crime, He will not stop you.
If you want something that is bad for you, He will not prevent you.

The power of Choice is in your hands no matter what the laws of America dictate. No matter what the judges rule on. No one but God Almighty can remove your power of Choice or freedom of speech. Paid for by Christ and all the US soldiers that have shed their blood for America’s freedom. I served in the Army during Vietnam.
So you can choose to sin or not to sin. To live right or live wrong
But the Soul that Sins it shall Die. Sin separates you from the close friendship and blessings you get by knowing God up close. The closer, you get the greater are the things that happen in your life
The more you sin the worst it gets, from a lot of mis fortune or bad luck, things just wont go right for you until you stop what it is that is putting a wall between you and God, To hear His voice of prosperity, gets harder and more distant until you no longer hear Him at all.
If you chose to serve Jesus instead of your self desires, then He grants you many Gifts and blessings.
If He loves you and you continue to sin, then you will get punished and corrected now before it is too late.
If you have not accepted the will of Christ in your life and continue to sin, Then you may not see judgment until the very end when it is to late to change.
Some people get away with murder and still get to go to Heaven.
Some do not have it that easy.
It is a different deal for each person depending on their relationship With the Father Through Jesus Christ.
For God has a different training plan for each individual. He is that large.
He instructs each one on an individual basis, to what is best for that person
He is a personal trainer to those who follow His Will and Way.
Sin separates you from receiving God Blessings
The Soul that Sins Shall Die.....

Ze Christian Fuhrer Hash Spoken!

A parody is a joke. His god is but a joke. My LORD and SAVIOR is no joke.

Normally here I would say, of course it's a joke! But as we can see on matters such as the violation of civil rights of our fellow citizens. Prejudice in a cutesy cross shaped package isn't a joke, it's disturbing superstition.

 

[BigBadWlf]

THERE IS GREAT FREEDOM IN AMERICA


You Are Created in His Image. He is a individual and so are you.
He respects the individual and will not interfere with a persons right to choose Good or Evil. Money or fame. He has left in your hands, all the options.
In America You have the right to be Right or Wrong to Put Ford Hubcaps on your Chevy Truck if U want to. Or soda pop on your cornflakes.

If you want to commit a crime, He will not stop you.
If you want something that is bad for you, He will not prevent you.

The power of Choice is in your hands no matter what the laws of America dictate. No matter what the judges rule on. No one but God Almighty can remove your power of Choice or freedom of speech. Paid for by Christ and all the US soldiers that have shed their blood for America’s freedom. I served in the Army during Vietnam.
So you can choose to sin or not to sin. To live right or live wrong
But the Soul that Sins it shall Die. Sin separates you from the close friendship and blessings you get by knowing God up close. The closer, you get the greater are the things that happen in your life
The more you sin the worst it gets, from a lot of mis fortune or bad luck, things just wont go right for you until you stop what it is that is putting a wall between you and God, To hear His voice of prosperity, gets harder and more distant until you no longer hear Him at all.
If you chose to serve Jesus instead of your self desires, then He grants you many Gifts and blessings.
If He loves you and you continue to sin, then you will get punished and corrected now before it is too late.
If you have not accepted the will of Christ in your life and continue to sin, Then you may not see judgment until the very end when it is to late to change.
Some people get away with murder and still get to go to Heaven.
Some do not have it that easy.
It is a different deal for each person depending on their relationship With the Father Through Jesus Christ.
For God has a different training plan for each individual. He is that large.
He instructs each one on an individual basis, to what is best for that person
He is a personal trainer to those who follow His Will and Way.
Sin separates you from receiving God Blessings
The Soul that Sins Shall Die.....

It is amazing how so many Christians in America choose to embrace the sins of hatred and bigotry and discrimination. it is amazing how many choose to compromise their sin by justifying their own petty personal prejudices by using Christianity. It si disheartening to see so many Christians choose to reject the teachings of Jesus and lie about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. The choice of these people, like the choice of racist and anti-Semitics is both sad and sick


But at the same time we get to see the bravery and devotion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as they bare the cross of hatred.
They get to endure the false witness, the attacks the discrimination yet they do so with dignity and honor…they exemplify the ideals of Christians and show those who have chosen hate what true Christians act like.

They choose to act with honor and with honesty. They only choice they make. The alternative would be to lie about how they are…to accept the condemnation of bigots and hate mongers

 

[mpok1519]

I agree; when one sides says things like "You're soul is gonna die" and then the other side says things like "Why can't we just get along" its pretty easy to see who hold the Christian ideal of love up on high.

 

[selfinflikted]

A parody is a joke. His god is but a joke. My LORD and SAVIOR is no joke.

Hollow words from a man in your position. I say the FSM is real and isn't a joke at all. He is even referenced in the Pledge of Allegiance AND the Constitution. Your god is the joke, the farce, the fake one.

Now, prove me wrong.

 

[JohnLocke]

Point of order, I suppose....

For those opposed to the so-called "judicial activism"... If the courts do not have the power to frustrate the tyranny of the majority, what will?

Relying on the "good nature" of the majority is just as absurd as relying on the perpetual good nature of presidents.

Seriously, suppose we have a situation where a majority of the Congress were in the President's pocket and they passed horrifically unconscionable laws, capital punishment for jaywalking, mandatory organ donation (even if you weren't dead yet), 24-hour surveillance of the marital bedroom, forced copulation and pregnancy based upon some crazed eugenic pipe dream of the Fuhrer?

Personally, I'd rather have the gradual refinement of precedent in its attempts to strike a balance between majority power and minority rights, than have to face the boom/bust cycles of oppression and revolution.

but your mileage may differ.

Peace

 

[gengwall]

Point of order, I suppose....

For those opposed to the so-called "judicial activism"... If the courts do not have the power to frustrate the tyranny of the majority, what will?

Relying on the "good nature" of the majority is just as absurd as relying on the perpetual good nature of presidents.

Seriously, suppose we have a situation where a majority of the Congress were in the President's pocket and they passed horrifically unconscionable laws, capital punishment for jaywalking, mandatory organ donation (even if you weren't dead yet), 24-hour surveillance of the marital bedroom, forced copulation and pregnancy based upon some crazed eugenic pipe dream of the Fuhrer?

Personally, I'd rather have the gradual refinement of precedent in its attempts to strike a balance between majority power and minority rights, than have to face the boom/bust cycles of oppression and revolution.

but your mileage may differ.

Peace

There still has to be a constitutional (CA, in this case) mandate to warrant the overturning of the majority's will. Something is not inherently wrong or tyrannical just because it has the larger pool of supporters.

 

[TheManeki]

My home state of South Carolina had an amendment to its state constitution to defend marriage, all the way back in 1895. It banned "marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood." (source) I suppose that something is not inherently right just because it has the larger pool of supporters, either.

Thankfully, the courts struck down that amendment as unconstitutional in 1967, although it wasn't actually removed from the state constitution until a referendum in 1998. I wonder if history may repeat itself for all the states that have tried or are trying to defend marriage against the new scourge of same-sex marriage by amending their constitutions.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

it won’t. amending state constitutions is just a stalling tactic. Everyone knows just like segregation , Jim Crow and bans on interracial marriage that discrimination ‘s days are numbered.

I guess you don't know about Baker v Nelson. There is a difference between restricting marriage on a superficial difference (such as race) and restricting marriage on a fundamental difference (such as sex/gender). If you disagree then you have a quarrell with the Honorable John Roberts and his Associate Justices, and the United States Constitution.

Various right wing groups in California are and have been collecting signatures to ballot an amendment to the state constitution making it all right to discriminate.

You seem to think that all discrimination is bad. Most, if not all, states, have a miminum age requirement to be married, that is age discrimination. I got my driver's license at 16-again age discrimination. Discrimination is not inherently bad, and according to the US Constitution individual states have the right to put limitations on marriage. I see no problem with California allowing same-sex marriages~that is their right as a state. I also see no problem with Texas limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples only. That is also their right as a state according to the US Constitution. I have no problem with states outlawing polygamous marriage-that is also discriminating against polygamists BTW. Marriage laws in all states discriminate against someone, and it is perfectly legal for a state to do so.

 

[Maren]

I guess you don't know about Baker v Nelson. There is a difference between restricting marriage on a superficial difference (such as race) and restricting marriage on a fundamental difference (such as sex/gender). If you disagree then you have a quarrell with the Honorable John Roberts and his Associate Justices, and the United States Constitution.

Every heard of Pace v Alabama? That was the Supreme Court ruling that ruled laws against miscegenation were legal, that denying people of different races to marry was not discrimination. Just like the Supreme Court decisions that validated slavery, segregation, etc. Baker v. Nelson will be overturned, it is just a matter of how soon. For the record, it was 19 years after the California Supreme Court ruled that California could not discriminate (Perez v Sharp), deny people of different races the right to marry, that the Supreme Court ruled the same in Loving v. Virginia.

You seem to think that all discrimination is bad. Most, if not all, states, have a miminum age requirement to be married, that is age discrimination. I got my driver's license at 16-again age discrimination. Discrimination is not inherently bad, and according to the US Constitution individual states have the right to put limitations on marriage. I see no problem with California allowing same-sex marriages~that is their right as a state. I also see no problem with Texas limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples only. That is also their right as a state according to the US Constitution. I have no problem with states outlawing polygamous marriage-that is also discriminating against polygamists BTW. Marriage laws in all states discriminate against someone, and it is perfectly legal for a state to do so.

But in the cases you've listed, the state has made compelling arguments with solid reasoning as to why it should be allowed to discriminate. For age, there are psychological development issues (maturity) and physical development issues. In the case of polygamy, there is a history of abuse and incest among those who practice it today.

This is known as scrutiny, it is a test courts apply to determine if practices that discriminate against some citizens are based on solid reasoning, and not merely because people don't like it or fear mongering (such as slippery slope arguments). The fact is, there are no real reasons for discrimination against gay couples, no compelling reason has ever been mentioned to deny same sex couples marriage rights. The only mentioned are tradition, which alone are not enough reason; religion, which is not a valid reason for law; or the lack of ability of same-sex couples to procreate together. This last idea is the main thrust of Baker v Nelson, the problem is that marriage has no test for procreation, heterosexuals are not denied marriage or their marriages revoked if they do not procreate. As such, procreation is not a valid reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I guess you don't know about Baker v Nelson. There is a difference between restricting marriage on a superficial difference (such as race) and restricting marriage on a fundamental difference (such as sex/gender). If you disagree then you have a quarrell with the Honorable John Roberts and his Associate Justices, and the United States Constitution.



You seem to think that all discrimination is bad. Most, if not all, states, have a miminum age requirement to be married, that is age discrimination. I got my driver's license at 16-again age discrimination. Discrimination is not inherently bad, and according to the US Constitution individual states have the right to put limitations on marriage. I see no problem with California allowing same-sex marriages~that is their right as a state. I also see no problem with Texas limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples only. That is also their right as a state according to the US Constitution. I have no problem with states outlawing polygamous marriage-that is also discriminating against polygamists BTW. Marriage laws in all states discriminate against someone, and it is perfectly legal for a state to do so.

Discrimination is fine if it serves a state purpose.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Discrimination is fine if it serves a state purpose.

Precisely. I'm quite happy for the government to discriminate (and legislate) based on gender where that discrimination/legislation serves a valid (secular) state purpose.

Come up with a valid purpose served by gender discrimination in marriage, and you'll have a basis for saying that discimination can stay.