Challenges to gay marriage ban passage filed in California Supreme Court

[Imperial]

With the passage of Proposition 8, that banned gay marriages within the State of California, many believed the issue has come to a close. Protests have erupted across the state while the first court papers have been filed within the California Supreme Court. The opponents of Prop 8 contend that because Prop 8 is a radical revision of the state's charter, it is required by California Constitution to be approved by at least 2/3 of the state legislator prior to appearing on the voter ballot. If accurate, Proposition 8 would be nullified despite being approved by popular vote.

Additionally, the 18,000 gay marriages performed are currently in a state of limbo. Does the state recognize the marriages performed or is the ban retroactively applied? Given that the Court has already ruled in favor of gay marriage once, it may occur that the Court rules in favor of gay marriage once again.

More info at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/state.laws/index.html?iref=newssearch

Proposition 8 passed 5,387,939 (52.5%) to 4,883,460 (47.5%)
Source: California Secretary of State's Office

[James Davis]

It'll be interesting to say the least, although this shows that gay marriage is still way outside the American mainstream. If a majority of California voters are against it, pretty much every state except MA would have similar if not greater majorities.

[Imperial]

Yes it certainly will be interesting to see where this all leads. I do believe that gay marriage is outside mainstream America, but so too were many things in our nation's history like Women's sufferage & rights, civil rights for minorities and the laundry list of societal issues. Like George W. Bush, perhaps history will judge differently.

One thing that annoyed me in Prop 8 is the amount of money religious organizations spent to pass this measure. The Mormon Church went so far as to say that its members had to donate and participate in pro-Prop 8 activities. Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus also spent millions to ensure positive media advertisements. This seems to irk at the separation of church & state.

[Dark Force]

It's a religious issue. What irks me is when someone loses on a proposition and go to the courts to try go over the people's will and legislate from the bench. This is wrong by all definitions of the constitution.

[Imperial]

It's a religious issue. What irks me is when someone loses on a proposition and go to the courts to try go over the people's will and legislate from the bench. This is wrong by all definitions of the constitution.

It is not a religious issues. We have civil marriage and we have religious marriage.

[Dark Force]

It is not a religious issues. We have civil marriage and we have religious marriage.

Correction: We have Civil Unions and Marriage.

[Great Lakes Union]

It's a religious issue. What irks me is when someone loses on a proposition and go to the courts to try go over the people's will and legislate from the bench. This is wrong by all definitions of the constitution.

No, there are some rights that the Constitution guarantees, and they cannot be taken away; even my popular vote. Read the Federalist Papers; the founders of this nation feared that certain factions would join together to take away the rights of others and that is why there are safeguards and limits to the will of the majority.

[Great Lakes Union]

Correction: We have Civil Unions and Marriage.

Actually Marriage, at least all of the legal benefits that come with it flow from the civil institution. Try getting married in a church without obtaining and filing a marriage license. I think you'll find that though married in the eyes of "god" that the state will not confer on you any of the legal benefits that come with it. On the other hand, anyone is free to go through the legal motions without a religious ceremony.

[AzureShadow]

Aren't haters great?

I can't wait for this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, make all of those churches have spent their money for nothing.

Also, the Latter Day Saints have a possibility of being closed down for illegal tax exemption, seeing as they donated millions of dollars to getting the proposition passed.


Damn ignorant bigots...

[Imperial]

Correction: We have Civil Unions and Marriage.

Have you seen a marriage license that reads Civil Union upon the top? They are marriage licenses. You're splitting hairs.

[Dark Force]

No, there are some rights that the Constitution guarantees, and they cannot be taken away; even my popular vote. Read the Federalist Papers; the founders of this nation feared that certain factions would join together to take away the rights of others and that is why there are safeguards and limits to the will of the majority.

I'm sorry, but there were no limits stated, it just needed to have a majority to win. Legally, it was majority vote, you can't add a limitations after the vote. And the constitution prevents the courts from legislating from the bench.

[AzureShadow]

I'm sorry, but there were no limits stated, it just needed to have a majority to win. Legally, it was majority vote, you can't add a limitations after the vote. And the constitution prevents the courts from legislating from the bench.

I'm pretty sure that the constitution also says that everyone is equal under the law.

[Dark Force]

Aren't haters great?

I can't wait for this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, make all of those churches have spent their money for nothing.

Also, the Latter Day Saints have a possibility of being closed down for illegal tax exemption, seeing as they donated millions of dollars to getting the proposition passed.


Damn ignorant bigots...

I love how you label anyone who disagrees with you as intolerant, haters, or idiots. You are about as bad as Lenin was. This is how you liberals try to win debates, because you label those who disagree with you as such, and no one wants to argue or debate your position because that automatically puts them in the "hater, intolerant, ignorant, bigot, or idiot" category. I'm sorry, but I see this as very childish.

A persons sexual orientation is their own business, I am not going to judge anyone or discriminate against anyone because their sexual orientation. My personal opinion doesn't matter. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, since the first organized societies formed. It doesn't matter the religion, region, nation, government, empire, etc — marriage was always left to the religious authorities. The fact that you have to fill out a form to get the government benefits doesn't make it any less of a religious issue. If anything, prop 8 could be challenged in court on the issue of separation of church and state.

By all means, if they want the government benefits of partnership, give it to them. And as far as not being able to visit each other in the hospital, that is wrong no matter what. You should be allowed to have anyone you want to come visit you in the hospital without filling out a bunch of paperwork.

Now, don't be so quick to judge people. All you do is make yourself seem like an ignorant person who hates everyone that you think thinks different than you or, for a lack of anything better say GTFO!

[James Davis]

Aren't haters great?

I can't wait for this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, make all of those churches have spent their money for nothing.

Also, the Latter Day Saints have a possibility of being closed down for illegal tax exemption, seeing as they donated millions of dollars to getting the proposition passed.


Damn ignorant bigots...

Ignorant (adj): destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society> ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

SCOTUS overriding this? Not happening, sorry. Gay marriage is one issue where swing justice Kennedy has consistently sided with the conservatives.

The Mormon Church getting shut down? Wishful thinking on your part.
- The church itself gave no direct donations, only its members did.
- Such a move would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, you know, that document that you love to protect when it supports you....

Bigot-noun: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

You're statements on the LDS, religion in general, and anyone who disagrees with you pretty much say it all. Careful, I might start mistaking you for lenin....

[Imperial]

I'm sorry, but there were no limits stated, it just needed to have a majority to win. Legally, it was majority vote, you can't add a limitations after the vote. And the constitution prevents the courts from legislating from the bench.

I've no idea where you're from, but you need a civics lesson. If you didn't know, every state has its own separate Constitution and enjoys a great degree of autonomy in a system of federalism. California's Constitution can be amended by popular vote through the initiative process, but substantial changes to California's Constitution must be approved by 2/3 of the State's Legislator.

For legislating from the bench, are you aware that the US Supreme Court does this every single time they make a court decision. It is called judicial review and the Constitution does NOT prohibit this power in any way.

As far as the Supreme Court touching this, I don't think they'll get anywhere near it. They've had plenty of chances with Massachusetts and have yet to touch the issue.

[The Arbiter]

Okay, really weird thing happened. I clicked on this thread and the ad said, "Is gay marriage wrong?" How strangely coincidental. :ek3:

[Imperial]

Okay, really weird thing happened. I clicked on this thread and the ad said, "Is gay marriage wrong?" How strangely coincidental. :ek3:

Adsense is pretty intelligent, it scans the threads and show appropriate ads.

[tom the pit leader]

Well, at least the 18,000 marriages are safe, due to ex post facto.

Really, this is why I hate orginized religion. Every day, poor people starve to death, the uninsured die or spread disease due to lack of money, and kids get subpar education, and the Churches thought that gay marriage was an issue which needed millions of dollars to fight? Come on. One of the few verses from the Quarn I know is one I think applies to any religious person of a "true" religion

First said by Muhammad: He who eats his fill while his neighbor goes without food is not a believer.

I mean, are dying people less important that some scrap of paper that doesn't even affect you or the private actions of anyone? Does anyone really think that gays won't be gay because they can't get married?

I'm sorry, but any words about the misplaced values of the left get drowned out by their actions here.

[Great Lakes Union]

I'm sorry, but there were no limits stated, it just needed to have a majority to win. Legally, it was majority vote, you can't add a limitations after the vote. And the constitution prevents the courts from legislating from the bench.

Like I said, read up on your Constitutional history a bit. The limits placed on the government are vast and many. Even if you had 99% of people vote on it, you could not just take away peoples guns, or free speech, or institute a state religion. There are limits to what the majority can force on the others.

Also, try looking up how the American court system actually works. The US has (aside from Louisiana because of historical issues) a common law system. This means that the law originates from the precedent set in the courts down through the years since the Norman Invasion of England. So it is totally the place of Judges to apply precedent, and create new precedent where none exist. They have been doing it for nearly 1,000 years.

Yes, the Legislature can make laws, and their laws trump the common law, but the Constitution trumps statute. And guess who has the final say in what is Constitutional? ;)

[James Davis]

Well, at least the 18,000 marriages are safe, due to ex post facto.

Really, this is why I hate orginized religion. Every day, poor people starve to death, the uninsured die or spread disease due to lack of money, and kids get subpar education, and the Churches thought that gay marriage was an issue which needed millions of dollars to fight? Come on. One of the few verses from the Quarn I know is one I think applies to any religious person of a "true" religion



I mean, are dying people less important that some scrap of paper that doesn't even affect you or the private actions of anyone? Does anyone really think that gays won't be gay because they can't get married?

I'm sorry, but any words about the misplaced values of the left get drowned out by their actions here.

Those already married are in limbo right now. It's something that will be fought out in court due to the ambiguity in the law.

The rest is just vitriolic drivel taken almost word for word from secularist talking points. As a member of a church that donates 25% of its income toward outreach to the homeless and the Third World, I find these gross generalizations to be deeply offensive.

[James Davis]

Like I said, read up on your Constitutional history a bit. The limits placed on the government are vast and many. Even if you had 99% of people vote on it, you could not just take away peoples guns, or free speech, or institute a state religion. There are limits to what the majority can force on the others.

Also, try looking up how the American court system actually works. The US has (aside from Louisiana because of historical issues) a common law system. This means that the law originates from the precedent set in the courts down through the years since the Norman Invasion of England. So it is totally the place of Judges to apply precedent, and create new precedent where none exist. They have been doing it for nearly 1,000 years.

Yes, the Legislature can make laws, and their laws trump the common law, but the Constitution trumps statute. And guess who has the final say in what is Constitutional? ;)

Actually, you're the one that's considerably off base. If 99% of people wanted to take everyone's guns away, it would result in the passage of the 28th amendment, which would cancel the 2nd.

Likewise, in CA, a gay marriage ban passed, but was struck down by the SC as unconstitutional. California has now amended their constitution, so that such a ban is no longer unconstitutional. The CA SC has been almost completely been taken out of the equation.

[tom the pit leader]

Those already married are in limbo right now. It's something that will be fought out in court due to the ambiguity in the law.

The rest is just vitriolic drivel taken almost word for word from post-modern talking points. As a member of a church that donates 25% of its income toward outreach to the homeless and the Third World, I find these gross generalizations to be deeply offensive.

Notice I said originzed religion. Many of the religious people I know are good people, some better than me. However, I know enough people that use relgion like a club to beat people with that I don't trust all relgious people.


You donate 25% of your income, good for you, (no sarcasam), but talking points or no, it's still true. You do your part, more than your part some would say, and I respect that. You get a pass because of what you do in RL, assuming what you said is true, but the Church as a whole doesn't get a pass because they have good people picking up the slack in other areas. If they all gave like you, I wouldn't say anything, but they don't. I really don't want to get bogged down in the charity of the church, I can't speak for all churches, but there is a lot of waste in many of the one's I've seen, and you would be hard pressed to argue that most of the chruches that spent the millions in question would rather the average memeber didn't see where all their money is going.

[Great Lakes Union]

Actually, you're the one that's considerably off base. If 99% of people wanted to take everyone's guns away, it would result in the passage of the 28th amendment, which would cancel the 2nd.

Likewise, in CA, a gay marriage ban passed, but was struck down by the SC as unconstitutional. California has now amended their constitution, so that such a ban is no longer unconstitutional. The CA SC has been almost completely been taken out of the equation.

It would still have to go through the Constitutional amendment process, which is not easy even for a popular measure.

And there still is the issue of whether prop 8 was a amendment or a revision, which would have required a 3/4ths vote. And the US Constitution still trumps that of the states, and we have no precedent on this subject as of yet.

[James Davis]

Notice I said originzed religion. Many of the religious people I know are good people, some better than me. However, I know enough people that use relgion like a club to beat people with that I don't trust all relgious people.


You donate 25% of your income, good for you, (no sarcasam), but talking points or no, it's still true. You do your part, more than your part some would say, and I respect that. You get a pass because of what you do in RL, assuming what you said is true, but the Church as a whole doesn't get a pass because they have good people picking up the slack in other areas. If they all gave like you, I wouldn't say anything, but they don't. I really don't want to get bogged down in the charity of the church, I can't speak for all churches, but there is a lot of waste in many of the one's I've seen, and you would be hard pressed to argue that most of the chruches that spent the millions in question would rather the average memeber didn't see where all their money is going.

To set the record straight, I donate 10% of MY income (which is very little, considering I'm a college student), and not that gracious of me, considering that I'm still pretty dependent on my parents. 25% of my church's income goes to the aforementioned places. I agree that SOME churches don't do enough, although, you aren't being fair to paint them all with the same brush. The Catholic Church, for example, has done a tremendous amount of good particularly in the last few centuries.

[James Davis]

It would still have to go through the Constitutional amendment process, which is not easy even for a popular measure.

And there still is the issue of whether prop 8 was a amendment or a revision, which would have required a 3/4ths vote. And the US Constitution still trumps that of the states, and we have no precedent on this subject as of yet.

I was just using your 99% figure. :P

Well, the 10th amendment clearly states that all powers that are not specifically granted to the Federal government are delegated to the states. I am a strict conservative when it comes to reading the Constitution, as well as a strong federalist. I just don't see the SCOTUS overturning this thing.

[tom the pit leader]

To set the record straight, I donate 10% of MY income (which is very little, considering I'm a college student). 25% of my church's income goes to the aforementioned places. I agree that SOME churches don't do enough, although, you aren't being fair to paint them all with the same brush. The Catholic Church, for example, has done a tremendous amount of good particularly in the last few centuries.

My problem isn't with your church then, my problem is with the churches that have flat screen tvs, millions to throw at things like this, the mega churches with all that extra commerical crap.

I wish I didn't have to paint all the good with the bad, but it's hard not too. Yes, lots of chruches have done increadable good, but not to bring up old fights, they have also done increadable evil when the wrong people control it. Just as librals have done amazing things, they do bad things as well. There are enough people on both sides that you get blamed for things you didn't do or don't support.

[James Davis]

Certainly Christianity has had it's dark moments...
-Crusades
-Spanish Inquisition
-Protestant-Catholic Wars
-Witch Trials
-Colonialism (which wasn't the Church's doing, but certainly occurred in the name of the Church)

The Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and virtually all evangelical Protestants (me) take outreach to the needy very seriously. Even the Mormon Church does a lot in terms of charity.

To address the mega churches you're talking about...I loathe the mega churches. They spread a false doctrine of Christianity, claiming that material success is a central goal in life and you will achieve it if you just follow God. This is apostasy in the strongest form, and regrettably, due to their size and resources, they have become the face of Christianity in America, which I find revolting.

Their membership makes up a tiny minority of those who call themselves "Christian" in this nation.

[Imperial]

The Catholic Church has also done a lot of psychological destruction with their priest scandals too <_< >_>

[James Davis]

The Catholic Church has also done a lot of psychological destruction with their priest scandals too <_< >_>

I disenchanted by their handling of the situation more than I was about it actually happening. Whenever I think of that, I just have to remember that 99% of all priests are totally innocent of that and the majority of those are really kind, good men.

[Imperial]

I disenchanted by their handling of the situation more than I was about it actually happening. Whenever I think of that, I just have to remember that 99% of all priests are totally innocent of that and the majority of those are really kind, good men.

I certainly hope so. Although I don't think that most people envisioned their tithe going to pay for court settlements.

[James Davis]

I certainly hope so. Although I don't think that most people envisioned their tithe going to pay for court settlements.

Certainly, and If I was a Catholic, I'd be writing some letters to the bishop of my diocese...

[tom the pit leader]

The Catholic Church has also done a lot of psychological destruction with their priest scandals too <_< >_>

Ya, I live near one of the worst diocies for that in the US. All the hospitals are good, but they get overshadowed by the scandals and their long and rather unpleasant history.

On the sex scandals, I think the Pope would score major points and help heal some of the hurt by flat out excommunicating any and all priests involved either by the act itself or by trying to hide it. Flat out say all the priests who did this are going to hell, no questions asked.

The main problem is the the mega churches and their ilk have so entrenched themsleves in your faith in terms of the PR war that getting them out will be a long and unpleasant fight, because they're just as bad as radical Islam, but know that pulling any terrorist/militant shit in America isn't going to fly.

[Hubb]

It's a religious issue. What irks me is when someone loses on a proposition and go to the courts to try go over the people's will and legislate from the bench. This is wrong by all definitions of the constitution.

I don't agree with it necessarily being a religious issue (it is for me, but that's irrelevant to others). However, the rest of your statement I agree with totally. The courts should never be used as a hammer to dent the will of the people. If it is overturned by the courts (9th circuit, probably), then they most definitely will be legislating from the bench and usurping the Constitution/Rights of the People.

[tom the pit leader]

I don't agree with it necessarily being a religious issue (it is for me, but that's irrelevant to others). However, the rest of your statement I agree with totally. The courts should never be used as a hammer to dent the will of the people. If it is overturned by the courts (9th circuit, probably), then they most definitely will be legislating from the bench and usurping the Constitution/Rights of the People.

Well, keep in mind the courts were needed to override the will of the south on racial segeragtion. Without Brown vrs Board to strike down seperate but equal, blacks wouldn't be going to school with whites and kept out of quality education.

[James Davis]

Ya, I live near one of the worst diocies for that in the US. All the hospitals are good, but they get overshadowed by the scandals and their long and rather unpleasant history.

On the sex scandals, I think the Pope would score major points and help heal some of the hurt by flat out excommunicating any and all priests involved either by the act itself or by trying to hide it. Flat out say all the priests who did this are going to hell, no questions asked.

The main problem is the the mega churches and their ilk have so entrenched themsleves in your faith in terms of the PR war that getting them out will be a long and unpleasant fight, because they're just as bad as radical Islam, but know that pulling any terrorist/militant shit in America isn't going to fly.

Personally, I think the Pope would love to, but he can't due to priest shortages already. That's why I think it would be a good thing for the Catholic Church to lift the celibacy requirements on its priests.

Many of the mega churches aren't that fanatic, rather they reject many of the core tenants of Christianity, and look down their noses at us simpletons who don't bend over backwards to make a cent.

Google "prosperity gospel" and you'll see what I mean.

[Hubb]

Well, keep in mind the courts were needed to override the will of the south on racial segeragtion. Without Brown vrs Board to strike down seperate but equal, blacks wouldn't be going to school with whites and kept out of quality education.

I'm not being rhetorical, but asking: Was there ever a vote to end the segregation of schools? If there was and it failed (on a state and/or national level), then you are right. If not, then there is a component missing in your argument (i.e. people being allowed to vote).

[tom the pit leader]

I'm not being rhetorical, but asking: Was there ever a vote to end the segregation of schools? If there was and it failed (on a state and/or national level), then you are right. If not, then there is a component missing in your argument (i.e. people being allowed to vote).

Well, the reason that that isn't totally relevent is that part of segergation was keeping black people from voting, so even having a vote would have been irrelevent because it would have been only whites and blacks who were braver than I am given their situation.

Voting was never intended to give the majority the ability to oppress the minority.

[Great Lakes Union]

I was just using your 99% figure. :P

Well, the 10th amendment clearly states that all powers that are not specifically granted to the Federal government are delegated to the states. I am a strict conservative when it comes to reading the Constitution, as well as a strong federalist. I just don't see the SCOTUS overturning this thing.

Actually its "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But I think the more important one here, and the newest and hence more relevant one is the 14th:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Hubb]

Voting was never intended to give the majority the ability to oppress the minority.

One could argue that's why we have a Bill of Rights. That way there cannot be a "tyranny of the majority." Of course, the language is said rights is always broken down and filtered with a fine tooth comb to either circumvent or uphold, depending on the argument.

[James Davis]

Actually its "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But I think the more important one here, and the newest and hence more relevant one is the 14th:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To be brutally honest, gay people have the exact same rights as everyone else. They're not having rights stripped away, rather they're trying to do something that is and always has been illegal.

[Great Lakes Union]

To be brutally honest, gay people have the exact same rights as everyone else. They're not having rights stripped away, rather they're trying to do something that is and always has been illegal.

The same rights? How can you say that with a straight face (no pun intended).

Historical custom does not equal fair. Slavery was legal for thousands of years. Women and children where considered property for thousands of years. And as far as marriage, inter-racial marriage was illegal in much of the US until the Supreme Court found those laws to be unconstitutional. At the time of the ruling, most of the nation apposed inter-racial marriages as morally wrong.

[Woody]

It makes me quite happy that there are still over 5 million "haters" in California.
In a few words... you lost. stop bitching. you don't see myself or Melidan taking the election of Obama to court do you?

[Dark Force]

The same rights? How can you say that with a straight face (no pun intended).

Historical custom does not equal fair. Slavery was legal for thousands of years. Women and children where considered property for thousands of years. And as far as marriage, inter-racial marriage was illegal in much of the US until the Supreme Court found those laws to be unconstitutional. At the time of the ruling, most of the nation apposed inter-racial marriages as morally wrong.

I'm going to repost what I said earlier:


<snip>
A persons sexual orientation is their own business, I am not going to judge anyone or discriminate against anyone because their sexual orientation. My personal opinion doesn't matter. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, since the first organized societies formed. It doesn't matter the religion, region, nation, government, empire, etc — marriage was always left to the religious authorities. The fact that you have to fill out a form to get the government benefits doesn't make it any less of a religious issue. If anything, prop 8 could be challenged in court on the issue of separation of church and state.

By all means, if they want the government benefits of partnership, give it to them. And as far as not being able to visit each other in the hospital, that is wrong no matter what. You should be allowed to have anyone you want to come visit you in the hospital without filling out a bunch of paperwork.

<snip>


Let me add on to this by saying that interracial marriages weren't always wrong. There are plenty of recorded cases in history of interracial marriages. Granted, most of the documented ones were between the rulers of the time, but they also occurred among the lower class. The Roman Empire, has many recorded instances of Africans joining the Roman Army, after fulfilling their tour, they become roman citizens and married women from Rome. Interracial marriages were made taboo in the South during the height of slavery.

As for slavery, yes, most cultures had slavery. But the slavery of the Greeks wasn't the same as the slavery of the South and even worse Sugar Islands. The slavery of ancient history was more of a servant type of slavery. The slaves slept in the same house, ate the same food, and some even had their own slaves. The slaves could have their own money, and some even would buy their freedom but most didn't because they were guaranteed all they would ever need if they remained slaves.

Lets face it, what happened from the colonial era to the Emancipation Proclamation, gave the definition a bad meaning. And we are still suffering the effects of the unspoken taboo of interracial marriages because of this time period as well.

[James Davis]

The same rights? How can you say that with a straight face (no pun intended).

Historical custom does not equal fair. Slavery was legal for thousands of years. Women and children where considered property for thousands of years. And as far as marriage, inter-racial marriage was illegal in much of the US until the Supreme Court found those laws to be unconstitutional. At the time of the ruling, most of the nation apposed inter-racial marriages as morally wrong.

Name one right that has been denied of gay people.

They have every right to marry whoever they want...provided the person isn't a member of the same sex or related to them in any way. The law applies to all of us equally.

[Assarax]

Name one right that has been denied of gay people.

They have every right to marry whoever they want...provided the person isn't a member of the same sex or related to them in any way. The law applies to all of us equally.

I personally don't see what's wrong with gay marriage. I mean, I can see why the religious right would have an issue with it, I grew up Catholic, so I know the religious stance about it.

What I see this ban on gay marriage doing, though, is treating gay men and women as inferior, second-class citizens, over a need to keep the official definition of the word 'marriage' the same as it has been for years. To those that claim that it isn't a matter of the definition of a word, but a violation of nature, it is true that all mammals, in order to reproduce, must mate with the opposite gender of their species. But if you look up any scientific research, you will find that there is evidence of homosexuality throughout many species on the planet.

Then of course, we could get into the Catholic belief of propagating the faith, which is why, of course, they don't believe in birth control, but that's another issue for another time.

[AzureShadow]

I love how you label anyone who disagrees with you as intolerant, haters, or idiots. You are about as bad as Lenin was. This is how you liberals try to win debates, because you label those who disagree with you as such, and no one wants to argue or debate your position because that automatically puts them in the "hater, intolerant, ignorant, bigot, or idiot" category. I'm sorry, but I see this as very childish.

Bigot-noun: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

You're statements on the LDS, religion in general, and anyone who disagrees with you pretty much say it all. Careful, I might start mistaking you for lenin....


Their opinion is that homosexuals are inferior to other people and should burn in hell for all eternity, that they shouldn't get the same rights as everyone else. That is complete and outright bigotry. It's just as bad as racism, and I absolutely will not stand for it. Their "freedom of religion" does not translate to "freedom to oppress those who do not support your religion."

The Mormon Church getting shut down? Wishful thinking on your part.
- The church itself gave no direct donations, only its members did.
- Such a move would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, you know, that document that you love to protect when it supports you....

They supported a change to legislation via religious propaganda.

IRS law:

Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.


So they are violating the IRS regulations, and being illegally tax-exempt. If they don't apply to change their status, they CAN and WILL get shut down.

I'm not saying I have anything against Mormons. I know a few who ARE against prop 8. But their church has illegally done stuff on behalf of passing prop 8, so I do think that the law should be served.

[AzureShadow]

It makes me quite happy that there are still over 5 million "haters" in California.
In a few words... you lost. stop bitching. you don't see myself or Melidan taking the election of Obama to court do you?

That's because Obama's election doesn't defy the constitution and deny millions of people their basic rights.

[Hubb]

That's because Obama's election doesn't defy the constitution and deny millions of people their basic rights.

Ah. NVM. I thought you were referring to something else.

[AzureShadow]

Ah. NVM. I thought you were referring to something else.

Not a problem. Lots of political crap going on at the moment, easy to get confused. It took me like 20 minutes to write my big post because I had to make sure I was referring to the right quotes and stuff. xD

[James Davis]

Their opinion is that homosexuals are inferior to other people and should burn in hell for all eternity, that they shouldn't get the same rights as everyone else. That is complete and outright bigotry. It's just as bad as racism, and I absolutely will not stand for it. Their "freedom of religion" does not translate to "freedom to oppress those who do not support your religion."

They supported a change to legislation via religious propaganda.

IRS law:

So they are violating the IRS regulations, and being illegally tax-exempt. If they don't apply to change their status, they CAN and WILL get shut down.

I'm not saying I have anything against Mormons. I know a few who ARE against prop 8. But their church has illegally done stuff on behalf of passing prop 8, so I do think that the law should be served.

I've never heard of anything so absurd. The church did not officially endorse Prop 8, nor did it endorse a candidate who supported it, nor did it directly donate to the measure.

All the church did was relay it's official standing from the leadership down to its members on the issue of gay marriage. Did they know how their members would respond? Certainly, but that doesn't make what they did illegal. The Mormon Church's actions were based on their religious doctrine, nothing more.

Hell, even the attorney for the gay movement in CA agrees. (http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=97b66a40-0f35-4f4c-b843-32138998993a)

The Mormon Church has every right to express their opinions on this and any other issue. All I hear from you is "let's shut down every tax-exempt organization that opposes my viewpoint."

[AzureShadow]

I've never heard of anything so absurd. The church did not officially endorse Prop 8, nor did it endorse a candidate who supported it, nor did it directly donate to the measure.

All the church did was relay it's official standing from the leadership down to its members on the issue of gay marriage. Did they know how their members would respond? Certainly, but that doesn't make what they did illegal. The Mormon Church's actions were based on their religious doctrine, nothing more.

Hell, even the attorney for the gay movement in CA agrees. (http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=97b66a40-0f35-4f4c-b843-32138998993a)

The Mormon Church has every right to express their opinions on this and any other issue. All I hear from you is "let's shut down every tax-exempt organization that opposes my viewpoint."

I need to get some stuff done, so I'm not gonna bother finding all the things that prove what I said.

But I do know that I never said "shut down tax-exempt organizations that oppose my viewpoint." From what I know, they broke the law. They should get shut down because of that. That's it.

And it isn't just "opposing my viewpoint." It's oppression of a minority, just because their beliefs say they have the right to.

I could make a religion that said being straight is a sin, and thus because of the freedom of religion clause, say that straight people shouldn't be able to be married, and push that through legislation. Does that sound right to you? Cuz it sure doesn't to me.

[James Davis]

That's because Obama's election doesn't defy the constitution and deny millions of people their basic rights.

Melodramatic much? One, the Constitution of the United States does not, at any point, give any right to homosexual marriage. The men who wrote the document would be appalled that such a conclusion could be drawn.

Second, and we've been over this, gay people have the exact same rights as everyone else. Unless I've been in a cave, Prop 8 did not strike down their right to vote, their protection against discrimination, their ability to have homosexual relations with other people, and many other "basic rights," you feel are being denied.

Every gay person in this country is protected by the law just as strongly as I am. Actually come to think of it, they're protected more by the law than I am, as someone could kill me without getting charged with a hate crime, but I digress.

Bottom line: The voters of California have spoken for the second time on this issue, and the gay rights movement has failed again.

[James Davis]

I need to get some stuff done, so I'm not gonna bother finding all the things that prove what I said.

But I do know that I never said "shut down tax-exempt organizations that oppose my viewpoint." From what I know, they broke the law. They should get shut down because of that. That's it.

And it isn't just "opposing my viewpoint." It's oppression of a minority, just because their beliefs say they have the right to.

I could make a religion that said being straight is a sin, and thus because of the freedom of religion clause, say that straight people shouldn't be able to be married, and push that through legislation. Does that sound right to you? Cuz it sure doesn't to me.

They did not break the law. The Mormons, not the Mormon Church acted directly on this legislation. Every reasonable legal analyst that has commented on this says that LDS was extremely careful not to cross the line, and they didn't.

Of course you could try to pull something like that, and if you somehow succeeded, kudos to you.

[The Corporal]

I've no idea where you're from, but you need a civics lesson. If you didn't know, every state has its own separate Constitution and enjoys a great degree of autonomy in a system of federalism. California's Constitution can be amended by popular vote through the initiative process, but substantial changes to California's Constitution must be approved by 2/3 of the State's Legislator.

For legislating from the bench, are you aware that the US Supreme Court does this every single time they make a court decision. It is called judicial review and the Constitution does NOT prohibit this power in any way.

As far as the Supreme Court touching this, I don't think they'll get anywhere near it. They've had plenty of chances with Massachusetts and have yet to touch the issue.
There is a difference between 'judicial review' and making up new legislation. Sadly, we've had a lot of the latter recently...

Well, at least the 18,000 marriages are safe, due to ex post facto.

Really, this is why I hate orginized religion. Every day, poor people starve to death, the uninsured die or spread disease due to lack of money, and kids get subpar education, and the Churches thought that gay marriage was an issue which needed millions of dollars to fight? Come on. One of the few verses from the Quarn I know is one I think applies to any religious person of a "true" religion



I mean, are dying people less important that some scrap of paper that doesn't even affect you or the private actions of anyone? Does anyone really think that gays won't be gay because they can't get married?

I'm sorry, but any words about the misplaced values of the left get drowned out by their actions here.
You are seriously blaming 3rd-world starvation on organized religion? I'm no fan of organized religion, but I do have a brain. If you refer to megachurches only, you are still wrong, but I understand the sentiment.

Actually its "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But I think the more important one here, and the newest and hence more relevant one is the 14th:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
By that reasoning any and all gun laws must be repealed. Any and all restrictions on the movement and voting rights of felons must be repealed. Sex offender registration would have to end, etc. All of those abridge the privileges of U.S. citizens.

[Dark Force]

Their opinion is that homosexuals are inferior to other people and should burn in hell for all eternity, that they shouldn't get the same rights as everyone else. That is complete and outright bigotry. It's just as bad as racism, and I absolutely will not stand for it. Their "freedom of religion" does not translate to "freedom to oppress those who do not support your religion."

YOU are trying to tell ME what MY opinion is?!?!

Lenin (oops!) AzureShadow, don't put words in my mouth. Clearly, you didn't read my entire post (or knew your argument was empty without cutting parts of it out), as you cut out the quote that laid out quite perfectly what I believed. I have a friend that is gay, he lived in California for 3 years. There is no way I think he or his boyfriend is in any way inferior or that they should burn in hell for all of eternity. You are the bigot. You treat anyone that disagrees with you as inferior, and think that we should burn in hell for thinking different than you. And God forbid we speak our minds, you flame us for it and label us as haters, which I can guarantee we're not the ones doing the hating right now.
How many times are you going to ignore what I said?

<snip>
A persons sexual orientation is their own business, I am not going to judge anyone or discriminate against anyone because their sexual orientation. My personal opinion doesn't matter. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, since the first organized societies formed. It doesn't matter the religion, region, nation, government, empire, etc — marriage was always left to the religious authorities. The fact that you have to fill out a form to get the government benefits doesn't make it any less of a religious issue. If anything, prop 8 could be challenged in court on the issue of separation of church and state.

By all means, if they want the government benefits of partnership, give it to them. And as far as not being able to visit each other in the hospital, that is wrong no matter what. You should be allowed to have anyone you want to come visit you in the hospital without filling out a bunch of paperwork.

<snip>


To add to that, JD is right. Gay's and Lesbians have the same right to marry as we do, they are allowed to be openly practicing homosexuals, and if I was assaulted by one, it would be assault. If I or someone else did it to them, it is a hate crime. By law, anyone that is straight, white, male, or Christian is inferior anymore.

[tom the pit leader]

No, it's only a hate crime if you do it because they're gay. If a gay person hits you, you get to hit them back.

Its a hate crime if you shoot the guy at the other end of the bar because he's gay and you don't like how he's looking at you. Same with blacks, if the motivator is because they're gay/black/hispanic/whatever, then its a hate crime. If you have ligitamate cause objectivly, like them assalting/thretening you, then by all means swing away as the saying goes.

But at the same time, I think that some protections are going to far, and that carried to the logical exteam, Afermative action is discrimitation against strait whites, such as myself.

[Dark Force]

No, it's only a hate crime if you do it because they're gay. If a gay person hits you, you get to hit them back.

Its a hate crime if you shoot the guy at the other end of the bar because he's gay and you don't like how he's looking at you. Same with blacks, if the motivator is because they're gay/black/hispanic/whatever, then its a hate crime. If you have ligitamate cause objectivly, like them assalting/thretening you, then by all means swing away as the saying goes.

I'm posting on my iPod at work, so this will be brief.
The problem is that isn't always the case. Not that long ago, in Louisiana, a white kid was being charged with a hate crime because a black person started throwing punches and he fought back and kicked the shit out of him.

Also food for thought, try find a case where someone was assaulted by a minority for being white/straight/Christian/etc and was charged for a hate crime. I don't think its ever been done. I could be wrong, but I've never heard of it.

[Assarax]

I'm posting on my iPod at work, so this will be brief.
The problem is that isn't always the case. Not that long ago, in Louisiana, a white kid was being charged with a hate crime because a black person started throwing punches and he fought back and kicked the shit out of him.


I think there was another case somewhere where a black kid and his friends got into it with a white kid and his friends, and the school suspended everyone and Jesse Jackson got his greasy mitts ahold of the issue... Luckily the school board told him to stfu.

Problem with affirmative action is that people do take it way too far. And yeah, I've never heard of any court case where someone beat up a white guy just because he was white and got charged with a hate crime for it. If that happened, all the activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would march on Washington.

[AzureShadow]

YOU are trying to tell ME what MY opinion is?!?!

No, I'm not trying to tell you anything. You're making nonexistent connections.

I never said any individual person had certain beliefs. I'm saying that the great majority of Christians follow the bible, which clearly states that homosexuals should and will burn in hell. Therefore, Christianity as a whole opposes homosexuality and actively oppresses it.

Sure, there are people like yourself who disagree with them on that point. There are probably even a lot of you. But certainly not the majority.

[AzureShadow]

Also, this and the other thread are getting ridiculously off-topic. Stop, or I will follow through with my suggestion from earlier on and try to get this area of the forum closed down. I know a few of the mods would probably agree with me there.

It's just getting to be too much for what should be a mature, civil, open discussion forum, and there isn't a single one of us who isn't guilty of contributing to that.

[The Corporal]

No, I'm not trying to tell you anything. You're making nonexistent connections.

I never said any individual person had certain beliefs. I'm saying that the great majority of Christians follow the bible, which clearly states that homosexuals should and will burn in hell. Therefore, Christianity as a whole opposes homosexuality and actively oppresses it.

Sure, there are people like yourself who disagree with them on that point. There are probably even a lot of you. But certainly not the majority.

I've had a few discussions with my Catholic ex-girlfriend about the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality - apparently, being a homosexual is not a free ticket to hell, acting upon your homosexual urges is. My take is that that particular viewpoint encourages Catholic homosexuals to not be sexually active or to stay in the closet, which isn't much better than just saying all gays must burn in the eternal fire...I wonder what that means for those childfucker priests?

[AzureShadow]

I've had a few discussions with my Catholic ex-girlfriend about the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality - apparently, being a homosexual is not a free ticket to hell, acting upon your homosexual urges is. My take is that that particular viewpoint encourages Catholic homosexuals to not be sexually active or to stay in the closet, which isn't much better than just saying all gays must burn in the eternal fire...I wonder what that means for those childfucker priests?

They're priests, so they're exempt.

-_-

Honestly, some churches are so hypocritical it's almost sad.

[tom the pit leader]

I've had a few discussions with my Catholic ex-girlfriend about the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality - apparently, being a homosexual is not a free ticket to hell, acting upon your homosexual urges is. My take is that that particular viewpoint encourages Catholic homosexuals to not be sexually active or to stay in the closet, which isn't much better than just saying all gays must burn in the eternal fire...I wonder what that means for those childfucker priests?

So apparently, God can forgive any sin but homosexuality. Murder, (straight) rape, child prongraphy, all those can be forgiven if you feel bad, but if you're gay, well then, bye bye see you in hell.

That don't make a whole lot of sence, but that's what some christians, not you, have argued, not in those words, but that message.

[The Corporal]

So apparently, God can forgive any sin but homosexuality. Murder, (straight) rape, child prongraphy, all those can be forgiven if you feel bad, but if you're gay, well then, bye bye see you in hell.

That don't make a whole lot of sence, but that's what some christians, not you, have argued, not in those words, but that message.

I should hope they change their minds. A few hundred years ago being a pagan or Jew was enough to earn you eternal damnation in the eyes of the Pope, hopefully it won't take that long to to realize that homosexuals shouldn't be ripped apart by Beezlebub's claws...

[AzureShadow]

I should hope they change their minds. A few hundred years ago being a pagan or Jew was enough to earn you eternal damnation in the eyes of the Pope, hopefully it won't take that long to to realize that homosexuals shouldn't be ripped apart by Beezlebub's claws...

It's exactly these reasons why I am completely opposed to the Catholic Church.

[IronsightSniper]

Try again next election year gay dudes.
From what I can remember, Votes against Gay marriage were way lower than that last year, and probably next election year people for gay marriage will win.

[tom the pit leader]

I should hope they change their minds. A few hundred years ago being a pagan or Jew was enough to earn you eternal damnation in the eyes of the Pope, hopefully it won't take that long to to realize that homosexuals shouldn't be ripped apart by Beezlebub's claws...

edited

I misread your post, so it wasn't funny.

[pres nyangai]

It's time for gays to get there equal rights

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
- James Madison

[Villalba]

There are many kinds of homosexual urges. But like Corp pointed out, acting upon those urges are condemned by the catholic church. There are of course, a few who can land you a trip down to prision [child molesting, animal molesting]

[Ricardo 0o]

Hope they get their rights back, if the religious people don't want to call it marriage fine, call it something else but give them the same rights as married couples, seriously, arguments against gay marriage are lame.

[Illusion]

They pass it...appeal it...ban it...appeal it....allow it....appeal it....ban it again...appeal it again....

I swear our legal system is a never ending cycle when it comes to the constitution....a document written by people who most probably didnt even have a 3rd grade education at the time...how hard can it be to interpret? I guess people just interpret it as to how they want it to be interpreted and if someone says otherwise....appeal it.

Personally I don't care if they want to marry or not so long as it's not done in my living room. I mean I'm not saying I understand it...I don't see how a guy can look at another guys hairy ass and find love...but I'll respect their ways if they respect mine(and don't share it with me in the work place). In regards to the religious impact of it...I hold no opinion whatsoever considering the fact we're all sinners anyway. Least it will help with the problem of overpopulation.

Seriously if their gonna be gay...their gonna be gay with or without the legal right to do so....so let them be gay...it's their life. If they want to fight over who gets the House...the car...the Dog or whatever it is they fight over in a divorce...then let them. I've been married for 3 years now(to a women)...give it a year and they'll regret it...might even turn a few straight again considering i've heard it's turned a few straight men gay.

[James Davis]

They pass it...appeal it...ban it...appeal it....allow it....appeal it....ban it again...appeal it again....

I swear our legal system is a never ending cycle when it comes to the constitution....a document written by people who most probably didnt even have a 3rd grade education at the time...how hard can it be to interpret? I guess people just interpret it as to how they want it to be interpreted and if someone says otherwise....appeal it.

Personally I don't care if they want to marry or not so long as it's not done in my living room. I mean I'm not saying I understand it...I don't see how a guy can look at another guys hairy ass and find love...but I'll respect their ways if they respect mine(and don't share it with me in the work place). In regards to the religious impact of it...I hold no opinion whatsoever considering the fact we're all sinners anyway. Least it will help with the problem of overpopulation.

Seriously if their gonna be gay...their gonna be gay with or without the legal right to do so....so let them be gay. I've been married for 3 years now(to a women)...give it a year and they'll regret it...might even turn a few straight again considering i've heard it's turned a few straight men gay.

ROFLMAO!

Sry about the less than content filled post, but that caught my funny bone pretty hard.

[Illusion]

I actually edited that last paragraph a bit while you were posting heh

Hell I wish I could ban straight marriage lol

Seriously if their gonna be gay...their gonna be gay with or without the legal right to do so....so let them be gay...it's their life. If they want to fight over who gets the House...the car...the Dog or whatever it is they fight over in a divorce...then let them. I've been married for 3 years now(to a women)...give it a year and they'll regret it...might even turn a few straight again considering i've heard it's turned a few straight men gay.

[tom the pit leader]

if you really hate gays,

we should make marriage mandatory for them.

[Illusion]

if you really hate gays,

we should make marriage mandatory for them.

I dont hate them at all...but thats funny considering i'm married. I believe in equal rights really...to each is own so long as its not hurting anyone. I'm just in a joking mood tonight.

[Nedved I]

Politicians see it fit to dig these issues up and inspect them like animals, conservatives say they're for smaller government but they're pushing for laws restricting who you can marry. All anyone who isn't in the mainstream wants is to be left ALONE. If your a Freshman in high school you keep your head down until Junior year. But we always see fit to dig into other peoples business. Gay Marriage, Abortion, Drugs. What gives us or ANY politician the right to try to control how we act or what we do.

[Gotterdanaa]

The thing about hate crimes is that they are generally perpetrated against a minority. The reason that you don't hear about courts trying a homosexual for beating up or killing a heterosexual as a hate crime is that they simply don't happen. A homosexual may kill a heterosexual, but sexuality isn't the issue.

On the other hand, when I was growing up I was the next-door neighbor of a lesbian couple. They were infinitely sweet, active in their local church (wait, what?) and in all ways were an asset to society. One day, they were found in the back of their jeep, murdered execution style. The killer admitted that their sexuality was a motivating factor. You can read their story here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Abdill).

What is the real reason that the religious right wishes to keep a class of people inferior to others? Is it love, which is supposed to be the hallmark of Christianity? Is this an example of some of things the scriptures speak of (Blessed are the peacemakers. Turn the other cheek. If a man asks you to walk a mile, go with him two)? Or is it people attempting to maintain a stranglehold on society, where their views on morality are the only thing that matters?

[Ricardo 0o]

The thing about hate crimes is that they are generally perpetrated against a minority. The reason that you don't hear about courts trying a homosexual for beating up or killing a heterosexual as a hate crime is that they simply don't happen. A homosexual may kill a heterosexual, but sexuality isn't the issue.

On the other hand, when I was growing up I was the next-door neighbor of a lesbian couple. They were infinitely sweet, active in their local church (wait, what?) and in all ways were an asset to society. One day, they were found in the back of their jeep, murdered execution style. The killer admitted that their sexuality was a motivating factor. You can read their story here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Abdill).

What is the real reason that the religious right wishes to keep a class of people inferior to others? Is it love, which is supposed to be the hallmark of Christianity? Is this an example of some of things the scriptures speak of (Blessed are the peacemakers. Turn the other cheek. If a man asks you to walk a mile, go with him two)? Or is it people attempting to maintain a stranglehold on society, where their views on morality are the only thing that matters?

Two words: Pure Bigotry.

[Ephemeral]

Two words: Pure Bigotry.

Two words: You're wrong.

Pinning this on Christianity as a whole is a stupid move. I have been a Christian for most of my life and I would happily campaign for gay marriage in full view of the public. It is a fundamental human right, and if research can prove to me that children brought up in a same-sex household are not disadvantaged in any way then I would happily fight to defend those rights.

People tend to pin extreme beliefs onto religion for whatever reason. I advise you to think a little clearer and realize this is an individual's opinion, not one of the collective.

[Gotterdanaa]

Two words: You're wrong.

Pinning this on Christianity as a whole is a stupid move. I have been a Christian for most of my life and I would happily campaign for gay marriage in full view of the public. It is a fundamental human right, and if research can prove to me that children brought up in a same-sex household are not disadvantaged in any way then I would happily fight to defend those rights.

People tend to pin extreme beliefs onto religion for whatever reason. I advise you to think a little clearer and realize this is an individual's opinion, not one of the collective.

You sir are, then, a rare Christian, and I salute you. I was raised in church, have preached in church, even attended Bible College. Of the 4 churches I went to, 4 were vehemently anti-homosexual. I understand that there are Christians and churches who are compassionate and reasonable, but those are definitely not the majority.

[Illusion]

Lets just ban marriage....period.

[wazfish1]

Funny how a country where 'all men are created equal' and the values of liberty are enshrined in the constitution can deny those liberties to the minorities on the simple virtue that they are in the minority. Its funny how the rights that the majority hold sacrosanct and would fight extremely hard to defend are the same rights denied to the minorities. Surely in a Democracy, everybody deserves a voice. Seems like thats not the case in the US.

This makes me recall the line in George Orwell's book Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

[Villalba]

Lets just ban marriage....period.

I agree with that, marriage is a pain in the ass, Gays should feel honored. its just a ban on gay marriage, not a ban on gay sex.

[Hymenbreach]

There are many kinds of homosexual urges. But like Corp pointed out, acting upon those urges are condemned by the catholic church. There are of course, a few who can land you a trip down to prision [child molesting, animal molesting]

Say what?

[Gotterdanaa]

There are many kinds of homosexual urges. But like Corp pointed out, acting upon those urges are condemned by the catholic church. There are of course, a few who can land you a trip down to prision [child molesting, animal molesting]

And there are also many kinds of heterosexual urges. Child molestation isn't the sole domain of homosexuals...in fact, the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by straight men.

[Ricardo 0o]

Two words: You're wrong.

Pinning this on Christianity as a whole is a stupid move. I have been a Christian for most of my life and I would happily campaign for gay marriage in full view of the public. It is a fundamental human right, and if research can prove to me that children brought up in a same-sex household are not disadvantaged in any way then I would happily fight to defend those rights.

People tend to pin extreme beliefs onto religion for whatever reason. I advise you to think a little clearer and realize this is an individual's opinion, not one of the collective.

Then you are a rare christian. most of the people who oppose gay marrage do so because "it's a sin" whether they admit it or not, like america's pastor rick warren. Heck they even make up silly argument like "it's a re definition of the word" wow solid argument.

And by the way, there are studies showing that kids of homosexual parents are just as "normal" as every other kid.

[Sylar]

to tell you the truth any research on how gays raise there kids is absolutely inconclusive, because gays have only started coming out and allowed marriage and such in 2000 or so, and 10 years is not enough time to collect data on something like that. and im for gay marriage.