Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Proposition 8 gets deep-sixed.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 12131415>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 1.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 11:05am
Marriage has been a religious idea a lot longer than it has been a governmental sanctioned device.


Instead of trying to get the benefits, both sides are fighting over the use of the word.


I don't think I've ever seen a single anti-gay-marriage person be against marriage benefits, just the use of the word. And I don't think I've ever seen a pro-gay-marriage person fight for strictly the benefits, but also the word.

Edited by Linus - 17 February 2011 at 11:07am

Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 11:09am
I used to agree with the word part, but the problem I see is that, regardless of history or tradition, of the government enforces an idea it must be enforced equally.

The only solution to that particular dilemma, if the word is the problem, is to change the word for both parties. All civil unions and whatnot.

And agreed that there really aren't very many actual anti-gay marriage advocates out there. I think really most of the opposition is a knee jerk, religious reaction without much actual thought.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 11:30am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I don't care if two men want to marry each other, nor do I care if some dude is stupid enough to want multiple wives.  IMO, the U.S. needs to do away with the term "marriage" alltogether. Make it a a legal union and be done with it. If they have a religious need to be "married", let it be something between them and the church. Kind of like a Batmiztvah or baptism.
agreed.
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 11:49am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:



And agreed that there really aren't very many actual anti-gay marriage advocates out there. I think really most of the opposition is a knee jerk, religious reaction without much actual thought.

Wut?

I think I get what your trying to say but I'm not sure there is room to play on subtle nuances of saying no.

Also, redundant much?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Instead of trying to get the benefits, both sides are fighting over the use of the word.
  . . . And I don't think I've ever seen a pro-gay-marriage person fight for strictly the benefits, but also the word.


You can say it all you want, but it's a shame that it doesn't make it truth.

The Human Rights Campaign's own mission statement:

"HRC seeks to improve the lives of LGBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs."

And, conversely, it doesn't matter what people are seemingly arguing. This is a rights issues based on the legality of binding, government-mandated licenses. It does not matter which church or religion recognizes anything, it's about the U.S. government recognizing and issuing marriage certificates - or civil union certificates - or what have you, to two agreeing adults no matter their gender.

It simply does not matter if religion had the idea of marriage first or not. The U.S. government recognizes, and bestows federal benefits upon, those who are married. And, therefore, the government has no place to discriminate in a gender-specific manner.

Again, the name of the certificate doesn't matter. It matters that it's a government institution.

It's the same flawed argument you've been bringing around since you signed up here. I thought after a while one would get tired of looking like a fool.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 1:57pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out where it says, ANYWHERE, that marriage is a right to anyone, including heterosexuals?


The government, by agreeing to issue certificates of marriage, created it as a system that falls in with other systems of discrimination prevention.

Where does it say anywhere that the ability to enter a building is a right? While not enumerated, the government has understood that because of its place in the structure of society, it is needed to enforce the ability for physically disabled folks to have reasonable access to buildings. Thus, mandated wheelchair ramps.

So, please, where does it say anywhere, in all caps, that entrance into a building is a right to anyone?
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 2:12pm

Yay. I was right again...

 
slippery slope proven by the forums own words.
 
Based on the above logic, anyone who is of legal age, can marry anyone else, doesn't matter if it is 30 people that want to marry, or old men marrying 14 year olds. If that state see's them as "consenting" then they can do what they want and if you try and not let them do it in your church... You will be sued and put in prison.
 
Anything less would be discriminatory, and trampling the rights of those involved.
 
Then let the lawsuits of lowering the consent age begin...
 
 
Nothing like a little relative morality to "fix" everything.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

14 year olds.


Is a 14-year-old a legal adult?

Quote You will be sued and put in prison
 
On what legal grounds would this arrest be made?
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 2:24pm
Yeah, you got us. That's exactly what we said FE. But on the subject, if 30 people want to marry, I could care less. Old men marrying 14years old violates the legal age requirement though. I don't beleive anyone here has advocated lowering the age of consent. If so, please highlight it for me. As far as the church is involved, I beleive I said it should be up to the church to decide if they want to approve it or not. I beleive in a seperation of church and state thanks.

Edited by oldpbnoob - 17 February 2011 at 2:32pm
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 2:25pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Yay. I was right again...


Not even close.
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Online
Points: 4920
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 2:59pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Yeah, you got us. That's exactly what we said FE. But on the subject, if 30 people want to marry, I could care less. Old men marrying 14years old violates the legal age requirement though. I don't beleive anyone here has advocated lowering the age of consent. If so, please highlight it for me. As far as the church is involved, I beleive I said it should be up to the church to decide if they want to approve it or not. I beleive in a seperation of church and state thanks.

You could or you couldn't?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by evillepaintball evillepaintball wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Yeah, you got us. That's exactly what we said FE. But on the subject, if 30 people want to marry, I could care less. Old men marrying 14years old violates the legal age requirement though. I don't beleive anyone here has advocated lowering the age of consent. If so, please highlight it for me. As far as the church is involved, I beleive I said it should be up to the church to decide if they want to approve it or not. I beleive in a seperation of church and state thanks.

You could or you couldn't?
It actually interests me somewhat, so if you take this into consideration, though I don't care much, I still do care, so technically, I would care less if I cared at all.
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 4:06pm
Oh hey, FE's pretending he understands the law again. I especially liked the part where he tried to argue the Canadian example as an example of the 'slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy', as if the two issues were at all related jurisprudentially. I could go into detail, but the rest of you get it and he just won't listen. 



Linus- you're still looking at this as an issue of people needing to justify their liberty to the state. Quite the contrary. America being a liberal democracy, the reverse is true. The state needs to justify the demonstrably justify the necessity of its impositions on individual freedom. The state has decided that the status of 'married' will convey some legal and financial benefits to those to whom it applies, so the onus is on the state to explain why two people cannot enjoy the benefit of that status. 


It's perfectly reasonable that the government has elected not to appeal this decision. One of the wonderful parts about liberal societies is that the courts protect the minority from the tyranny of the mob. The mob tried to have its say, attempted to impose its collective religious and moral views on something that's none of its business, and got rightfully stomped by the courts. That's entirely appropriate, and it's not the role of the state to try to reinforce the stupidity of the voters when the courts decide they're out of line. America is not governed by referendum.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 6:28pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

America being a liberal democracy


That's what wrong wit 'Murica and in 1 year when we get that Muslim, Socialist, Terrerist out the dern office we'll be a conservative democracy again and we can finally fix 'Murica's morality problem by making this great country a Theocracy once and fer all.

Gawd Bless 'Murica![

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

It's perfectly reasonable that the government has elected not to appeal this decision. One of the wonderful parts about liberal societies is that the courts protect the minority from the tyranny of the mob. The mob tried to have its say, attempted to impose its collective religious and moral views on something that's none of its business, and got rightfully stomped by the courts. That's entirely appropriate, and it's not the role of the state to try to reinforce the stupidity of the voters when the courts decide they're out of line. America is not governed by referendum.


And that's Communism right there; in a de-mok-ra-see what the people want, the people dern get.

But what would a Cannuk know about de-mok-ra-see?
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2011 at 7:51pm
I'd honestly like to see an fMRI of FE's head when he's thinking about politics. I'm fairly curious to see if any areas actually light up.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 April 2011 at 7:23pm
Yeah, I brought this thread back.  However, this article really belongs here.  I think I pointed out somewhere in this 14 page mess that even if the judges decision was legally defensible, not recusing himself for personal reasons would become an issue.

Link

Originally posted by article article wrote:


AP Exclusive: Judge's partner cited in Prop 8 case


By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Lisa Leff, Associated Press 25 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban say the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to appeal.

Lawyer Andy Pugno tells The Associated Press on Monday that backers of the voter-approved measure believe that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case because his impartiality could "reasonably" be questioned.

Walker declared Prop 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californian's civil rights last summer. He retired from the bench in February.

Rumors circulated during the 13-day trial that the judge was gay. Walker confirmed them this month. He said he did not consider his 10-year relationship a reason for recusal.

Gotta throw the BS flag on the judge for the last line in the article.  He either has the worst judgment of any judge ever and should never have been on the bench or he was just hoping to not get caught.


Edit:  For Mackstradamus next prediction.

This knucklehead judge has probably set the cause back by his actions.  I predict a right wing furor over allowing homosexuals in positions of authority with this case as an example of the abuses that result.  I also predict a response which includes digging even further into the personal lives of those who seek government office.


Can you say "witch hunt?"

Edited by Mack - 25 April 2011 at 7:27pm
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 April 2011 at 8:58pm
lol
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 April 2011 at 9:25pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Yeah, I brought this thread back.  However, this article really belongs here.  I think I pointed out somewhere in this 14 page mess that even if the judges decision was legally defensible, not recusing himself for personal reasons would become an issue.

Link

Originally posted by article article wrote:


AP Exclusive: Judge's partner cited in Prop 8 case


By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Lisa Leff, Associated Press 25 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban say the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to appeal.

Lawyer Andy Pugno tells The Associated Press on Monday that backers of the voter-approved measure believe that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case because his impartiality could "reasonably" be questioned.

Walker declared Prop 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californian's civil rights last summer. He retired from the bench in February.

Rumors circulated during the 13-day trial that the judge was gay. Walker confirmed them this month. He said he did not consider his 10-year relationship a reason for recusal.

Gotta throw the BS flag on the judge for the last line in the article.  He either has the worst judgment of any judge ever and should never have been on the bench or he was just hoping to not get caught.


Edit:  For Mackstradamus next prediction.

This knucklehead judge has probably set the cause back by his actions.  I predict a right wing furor over allowing homosexuals in positions of authority with this case as an example of the abuses that result.  I also predict a response which includes digging even further into the personal lives of those who seek government office.


Can you say "witch hunt?"

What a bloody idiot. Now a perfectly sound legal decision is going to be tainted by this foolishness. Unfortunately, the decision will be appealed based on the judge not recusing himself. The court of appeal will probably be unable to ratify the original decision on the original grounds; this may necessitate the case being refought in court. The result will be the same, but what a damned waste of time.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 April 2011 at 9:26pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Gotta throw the BS flag on the judge for the last line in the article.  He either has the worst judgment of any judge ever and should never have been on the bench or he was just hoping to not get caught.

This does pose an interesting question.

Is the judge any less qualified to make a decision because he's in the same demographic that's being affected by a proposition?

In this situation, it's hard to find a neutral party. It's something that people feel strongly enough to be a black or white issue. Is it only legitimate if an opposing judge makes a decision? If the judge was revealed to be anti-gay, and he upheld Prop 8, would his decision also be a problem?


Edited by Tolgak - 25 April 2011 at 9:28pm
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 April 2011 at 9:29pm
It'll be seen as a conflict of interest, but it's unfortunate that it will work like that. 

I personally don't see how it is any different than someone in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex making the decision. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 12131415>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.