Prop 8 overturned

edited August 2010 in Spurious Generalities
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.

If this gets appealed and goes to the supreme court, the issue could once and for all be settled on a national level.

Comments

  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    Good stuff, it's time America came into the 21st century on this issue. If you don't like it, don't have a gay marriage, simple as that.
  • edited August 2010
    now i can finally walk around my block naked!
  • edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »
    Good stuff, it's time America came into the 21st century on this issue. If you don't like it, don't have a gay marriage, simple as that.

    The only reason that the issue is dragging ass is that the majority of Americans still don't agree with it. The reason that the gay marriage is making progress now is that people are wondering whether or not it's a right, and whether or not there should be a majority vote about a right.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    I dont see whyt he fags cant just be happy with civil unions Why must they insist on marriage.
  • edited August 2010
    I dont see whyt he fags cant just be happy with civil unions Why must they insist on marriage.

    Because they believe that
    article wrote:
    it discriminates against gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday

    and
    "Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
  • jaconjacon Acolyte
    edited August 2010
    At least.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    Because they believe that



    and

    I still dont see it as necessary to call it marriage. It seems like they just want to shove that there gay in peoples faces even more.
  • edited August 2010
    I still dont see it as necessary to call it marriage. It seems like they just want to shove that there gay in peoples faces even more.

    You trollin' again?

    How would gays getting married make their gayness any more apparent to people?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    You trollin' again?

    How would gays getting married make their gayness any more apparent to people?

    Nope not trolling. Getting married isnt necessary for them. but they use the issue as an excuse to protest and just all around make a huge deal out of it. The whole gay pride thing pisses me off you dont see me proclaiming straight pride. They say they want to be viewed as no different then others but they seem to activley try to appear different with there parades and shit. Prop 8 showed most people dont want gay marriage and once again an activist judge had to get involved. Im fine if they want civil unions but I cant bring myself to support them getting married. However a civil union should include the same rights as marriage imo.
  • edited August 2010
    Nope not trolling. Getting married isnt necessary for them.

    But why should that be anyone's decision aside from the couple concerned?
    but they use the issue as an excuse to protest and just all around make a huge deal out of it. The whole gay pride thing pisses me off you dont see me proclaiming straight pride. They say they want to be viewed as no different then others but they seem to activley try to appear different with there parades and shit. Prop 8 showed most people dont want gay marriage and once again an activist judge had to get involved. Im fine if they want civil unions but I cant bring myself to support them getting married. However a civil union should include the same rights as marriage imo.

    I don't think it's a matter of pride, it's a matter of whether or not gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. Having separate rules for gay couples would be considered discrimination, and the government doesn't usually allow discriminatory laws to be on the books.
  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    Homosexuals can have strict morals and not believe in sex outside marriage too. It's kinda like forcing devout gays (not this isn't an oxymoron, look at the pope) to live in sin.
  • edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »
    Homosexuals can have strict morals and not believe in sex outside marriage too. It's kinda like forcing devout gays (not this isn't an oxymoron, look at the pope) to live in sin.

    I don't think that that's what most of them have in mind, but whatever.

    What it boils down to in the end is that whether or not the majority agrees, the government (As shown again and again by the constitution and various instances of case law) isn't allowed to get involved to tell consenting adults whether or not they're allowed to marry. The main reason for that is that if the government said that straight couples are allowed to marry but homosexual couples are not, it would be a state acknowledgement that one group is superior to another.

    Sure, there's the religious view of it that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that's fine. Nobody is saying that they have to get married to someone of the same sex, or that their churches have to host gay marriages, but the state is under no obligation to the religious community to share that definition, and it's their responsibility (Because in our country, there is meant to be an emphasis on people's equality under the law and everything) not to.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    Now couldnt one use the same arguments for gay marriage to say a pedo can marry someone underage? I mean whos to say a 50 and 15 year old cant be in love right? Where does it stop. Your gonna have people marrying animals and in animate objects. And before you say well them being underage is wrong remember back in the day that was fine. Pedophilia being wrong is just a man made stigma. So why isn't that protected why dont they get equal treatment. You have to draw a line somewhere.
  • edited August 2010
    Now couldnt one use the same arguments for gay marriage to say a pedo can marry someone underage? I mean whos to say a 50 and 15 year old cant be in love right? Where does it stop. Your gonna have people marrying animals and in animate objects. And before you say well them being underage is wrong remember back in the day that was fine. Pedophilia being wrong is just a man made stigma. So why isn't that protected why dont they get equal treatment. You have to draw a line somewhere.

    No. It stops at two consenting adults.

    EDIT: It's funny that people suggest that gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    No. It stops at two consenting adults.

    EDIT: It's funny that people suggest that gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia.

    But why? It used to be it stopped at consenting men and women? Who are we to judge what age is appropriate right?
  • edited August 2010
    But why? It used to be it stopped at consenting men and women? Who are we to judge what age is appropriate right?

    The standard that is being applied and has been applied is that any pair of consenting adults must have the same rights as any other pair of consenting adults.

    Your argument doesn't hold water.
Sign In or Register to comment.