Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

However, when someone busts in and tries to change something that I believe in I will fight to preserve my beliefs.

Your beliefs and your morals are not in jeopardy. You do not suddenly have to like homosexuality or become gay because of any of this. You are free to hate on any group of people you want. You are free to continue to live your life as you see fit. This extends the same protections to everyone.

Marriages are not going to fall apart because of this. People are not going to suddenly start screwing turtles. The only thing that changes is a bigoted clerk in a courthouse can no longer refuse a marriage license because Bob and Doug are the ones asking.

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

That's exactly what I just said. Two groups that have conflicting ideals both have the right to maintain their ideals, but where is the line drawn? Who looses ground? Who really has the right to infringe upon another groups rights?

Your rights end where they infringe on those of another. You have the right to believe and even say anything you want about any group of people, there is however, no right to force your ideas on another group.

And according to the previoulsy stated definition, everyone that is unwilling to see both sides of the fence is a bigot, so yeah, we're all bigots. Give it a rest already. This discussion is becoming infintile.

There is no other side. Those arguing against it argue because they believe it is wrong and therefore their viewpoint should be imposed on others.

[Caspian]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Shit, this is going to kill the thread.

If only that were true...

[Icemage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

So you're saying I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter, but only if I'm gay in California?

Other 49 states and all other gay people are excluded. No gay people from other countries and absolutely no straight people can comment now.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. Reading comprehension would be your friend, if you'd just try a bit harder.

Read what you quoted again, and think a little harder before your fingers touch the keyboard next time.


Icemage

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Apparently I am not capable of properly expressing my views as I am being greatly misunderstood. Never once did I condemn anyone for their beliefs or way of living. Nor was I saying that my beliefs should be imposed on others. I was merely trying to shine a light on how people such as myself think.
Also, I apologize for any spelling mistakes, my typing skills are less than stellar and I did not go back to fix all my mistakes.
With that, I will resign myself from further cluttering up this thread.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

No no, I want to hear more.

You're ok with homosexuality. But you're against allowing homosexuals to obtain a marriage license.

Am I on track so far?

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

So you're saying I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter, but only if I'm gay in California?

I would point out the irony in reading that comment so selectively after admonishing someone for doing the same on the previous page, if not for the fact that I actually believe you're that fucking stupid.


No, BBQ. He said your rights are not at risk. As in if you are not a Homosexual, none of your rights will be infringed upon by this judgment. Your morals might be offended, your opinion might be counter to the legal fact, but ultimately none of your human or constitutional rights will be impacted.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. Reading comprehension would be your friend, if you'd just try a bit harder.

Read what you quoted again, and think a little harder before your fingers touch the keyboard next time.


Icemage

No one is taking away your right to defend your opinions, but if you're not gay and living in California, you have absolutely none of your "rights" at jeopardy, regardless of what happens in this particular decision. Don't use that argument if you don't fall into the above-mentioned criteria; it makes you look short-sighted and intolerant.

Your words.

Do I have to point out I was being factious, too? Caspian seemed to get it.

Right where you argued in favor of the majority imposing their view of right on everyone. Yes you attempted a backtrack when you said you thought the government has no place dictating how others live their lives, except you were arguing the opposite yesterday.

In your mind, perhaps I did back-track, but I was just fleshing out my opinion further. There is my opinion about gay marriage and then there is my opinion about voting. These are separate things. I see no right or wrong in the process of casting a vote and any time votes are overturned, it should be taken very, very seriously.

Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot as a political toy, at least that's what I think. There were plenty of other things they could have put there, but the that's what got through. But the Proposition itself was unethical and how it got there is an issue that was not addressed in this case

Now the system can continue to be abused and the people behind the board of elections and such in California aren't going to be held accountable. That's kind of a problem, don't you think? Why is everyone ignoring this very important facet of the issue. Most of you are just getting hung-up on the stuff that's easy to get hung-up on, the things you can create monsters with.

And that's what they want people to do. That's what the proposition was designed for. Its going to be used for the dog and pony show this fall. We all know this case could have probably been handled sooner than it was, the timing is just so good.

They're not going to rush to get gay marriage instated at any rate. They still have to make an amendment, its still has to pass and I wouldn't be surprised if that was put off til next year, safely after elections.

[Gobo]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Here is the whole 138 pg ruling for those who care to read it

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acro...INAL.pdf?tsp=1

not going to say much other than glad this was overturned.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

So basically you're saying you want local law to supersede federal law. Because people voted for it.

[Tiponya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Oh yeah, local law to supersede federal law sounds like a great idea.
Some states will invoke Prohibition again, you know, because it worked so well the first time.
I'm sure some states would love to get rid of appeals for individuals up for capital punishment, well hell let's just hang them outside the court house. Why bother with a trial when you KNOW he's guilty?
Maybe you'll see "Whites Only" signs again, after all, Civil Rights don't apply unless the state and voters want them to.

As stupid as the federal government is, states are absolute morons. It would barely be a "United" States then.

[Icemage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Your words.

Do I have to point out I was being factious, too? Caspian seemed to get it.

No one is taking away your right to defend your opinions, but if you're not gay and living in California, you have absolutely none of your "rights" at jeopardy, regardless of what happens in this particular decision. Don't use that argument if you don't fall into the above-mentioned criteria; it makes you look short-sighted and intolerant.

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: Here, since you've failed twice at reading comprehension. Above quote means "You shouldn't be talking about how your rights are being infringed on this issue if you aren't gay and living in California". It doesn't mean "you can't talk about this if you aren't gay and living in California." Sheesh.


Icemage

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

They still have to make an amendment,

You really don't get how the law works, do you? BBQ, before you start talking about how terrible our representative government is, maybe you should do some studying so you're not another of the ignorant plods that makes it a necessary evil.

No, they don't. According to this ruling, that right has been around since at least the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection clause. In the same way that desegregated schools didn't requite an amendment. If the Supreme Court were to uphold this, same-sex marriage would become protected under the constitution as it is. Nobody is working on an amendment, mainly because everyone with half a brain knows that an amendment at this point would never pass, and would only serve to hurt their cause. It's just too divisive an issue to pass-- and most of the politicians that like playing the center are just going to go "STATE'S RIGHTS, STATE'S RIGHTS, STATE'S RIGHTS" and shoot it down without even getting into the ideological fight.

[Caspian]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I really just hope this thread will die. Please.

I'd also like to point out that one of the tags for this thread is: "making buttsex boring". I chuckled.

[Murphie]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Why do you hope the thread will die? People clearly find the topic worth discussing. I mean, most people seem to be on the same page, but hey, we, as the majority shouldn't silence the minority who want to do and say things we disagree with.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

[Cometgreen]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

So basically you're saying you want local law to supersede federal law. Because people voted for it.

No, local law should be respected for local issues. It is not about superseding federal law (and which federal law, exactly, guarantees marriage rights across the Union?). And why should federal law supersede local law? Because people voted for it?

As stupid as the federal government is, states are absolute morons. It would barely be a "United" States then.

Yes, much better to subject the entire nation to the same laws, even if those laws are horrible. States are absolute morons for working against REAL ID and the drug war. I love that you mentioned prohibition, given that prohibition was... you know... federally enforced.

Why would states bring back prohibition? States, particularly California, are trying to resist the federal prohibition of marijuana. This is what the American system was intended to be: a federation of states maintaining much of their sovereignty, but giving up limited rights to the federal government. Which would you prefer: a bad law applied in a couple of states, or a bad law forced upon all 50 states? Which do you think it is easier for the voters to influence: the local legislature or the federal legislature? If you were dissatisfied living under a certain law code, would you prefer moving out of your state or moving out of the country altogether?

Really people, this was a popularly elected amendment to the California Constitution. I don't think it is a good amendment, but these shenanigans are reducing the federal system to anarchy. If a particular federal judge doesn't like something, then shit, it shouldn't be allowed.* If the Congress wants to enact legislation with or without constitutional authority to do so, ehh, whatever. If the President wants to assasxxxxte American citizens, just let 'im.

But hey, at least this lawless act of government helps some people rather than hurting them. At least it didn't decide the entire election of a President.

* "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." WTF? It is a federal judge's job to critique the rationality of a popularly voted amendment to a state constitution?

Nobody is working on an amendment, mainly because everyone with half a brain knows that an amendment at this point would never pass, and would only serve to hurt their cause.

Because it appears the majority of voting Americans don't believe the state should recognize same-sex marriages. Again, I disagree (I think the state should not involve itself with marriage at all), but these bans have a nasty habit of being enacted when left to a democratic vote.