Proposition 8 overturned in California

[OllieFranz]

Replace "president" with "governor" and that also describes 2/3 of the Massachusetts supreme court, when they legalized gay marriage.

Makes me wonder why people blame "liberals" for all of this.

In fact, at the time of the Goodrich decision some of the judges said that they wished they did not have to hear the case, because they did not want same-sex marriage, and especially did not want to make Massachusetts the first state to endorse it, but the Constitution gave them no choice.

 

[TomWolfe]

Bit late to this discussion and apologies if this point has been brought up previously (lot of posts...):

But according to the court transcript, the main witness for the proponents of prop 8 (in fact, the only one who showed), a guy called Blankenhorn, the person responsible for making their case, agrees that allowing gay marriages would be a plus.

Both Cott and Blankenhorn testified that California stands to benefit if it were to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Blankenhorn noted that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.”

So even those who are standing up in a court of law trying to deny the right of gay people to get married agree that it would benefit society.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's fascinating that the group calling for tolerance shows no tolerance for proper marriage. And no tolerance for any dissent really.

Strawman. I've said, and many others have agreed, that you can still have and hold your own 'Christian' concept of marriage. What does that represent other than tolerance? Something that you seem incapable of displaying with regards to other people holding an alternate concept of marriage.

 

[Historicus]

Mod Hat On
Thread closed permanently by staff.
Mod Hat Off
​