One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Zachstar]

That is why it is not up to us but up to the highest courts. Remember Interracial marriage for instance.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

That is why it is not up to us but up to the highest courts. Remember Interracial marriage for instance.

Excellent point. I bet the majority would have voted against that at one time also.

[Bubblehead1980]

I have no religious views so this issue is different for me.I am opposed to gay marriage because it's just another thing the gay lobby wants to bitch and cry about when courts should be dealing with much more important issues.The voters of California voted NO to gay marriage, that should be respected but nooo the gay lobby has to go to Federal Court when this is supposed to be a state issue anyway with a judge who is gay(how could he be fair?) and get a sham ruling.Hopefully SCOTUS will settle this once and for all.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I have no religious views so this issue is different for me.I am opposed to gay marriage because it's just another thing the gay lobby wants to bitch and cry about when courts should be dealing with much more important issues.The voters of California voted NO to gay marriage, that should be respected but nooo the gay lobby has to go to Federal Court when this is supposed to be a state issue anyway with a judge who is gay(how could he be fair?) and get a sham ruling.Hopefully SCOTUS will settle this once and for all.

By your reasoning it would also be impossible for a hetero judge to be fair in this instance, since you seem to believe that it's solely a "gays vs. straights" issue. We would need to find a judge who has been deemed suitably asexual in order to render a really fair decision.

Unless of course you're implying that hetero people are by default completely devoid of any biases and prejudices that might come into play.

Which is an assumption that the very existence of Proposition 8 makes laughable to begin with.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

The voters of California voted NO to gay marriage, that should be respected

Mob rule doesn't allow you to vote the minority's rights away.

but nooo the gay lobby has to go to Federal Court

How dare they exercise their rights to judicial review!

when this is supposed to be a state issue anyway

The 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Hopefully SCOTUS will settle this once and for all.

They should just copy the text of Loving vs. Virginia word for word, and replace every mention of "race" with "sexual orientation." That would be a fine pimpslap to the anti-gay marriage crowd.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Mob rule doesn't allow you to vote the minority's rights away.

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

I used "tyranny of the majority" earlier in the thread and SteamWake laughed at me. Tryin to switch it up for variety's sake. How's "majoritarianism?" "Ochlocracy?"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

On the other hand if the majority actually takes away the rights of the minority, what do you call it?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On the other hand if the majority actually takes away the rights of the minority, what do you call it?

Where is it written that gays have said rights to GAY MARRIAGE to be taken away to begin with?

[Aramike]

I'm sorry, but how were gays discriminated against again?

I thought homosexuals were people - not a race unto themselves. Under Prop 8 marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Are gay men not men? Are gay women not women?

In fact, I submit that they are men and women!

Meaning, they had the SAME rights. What they wanted were SPECIAL rights. (Which is alarming because, in CA, gays are already allowed civil unions which, on paper, is the same thing. Ultimately this is nothing more than an attempt to usurp the term marriage from its traditional meaning, which shows to the shallowness of these activists.)

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I'm sorry, but how were gays discriminated against again?

In a nutshell tax laws.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

In a nutshell tax laws.

Unless you're willing to concede that the primary reason straight people want to get married is for the tax breaks, this argument won't stand.

Ultimately the reasons why two people choose to marry are their own business and nobody else's. That has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to marry, regardless of the reasons for their desire to do so.

Even if it is just for the tax breaks, that still no reason why only straight people should have the option to take advantage of them.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

In a nutshell tax laws.

Again, how is that discriminatory? Men and women, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, have the same exact rights. What they want are different rights.

[Aramike]

They should just copy the text of Loving vs. Virginia word for word, and replace every mention of "race" with "sexual orientation." That would be a fine pimpslap to the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Too bad that doesn't work.

Loving V Virginia was about bestowing the same rights on all men and women under the premise that all men and women are created equal.

The issue of gay marriage, namely Prop 8, is specifically based upon the opposite concept, that not all men and women are created equal and therefore not placated by the same laws. A law that marriage is between a man and a woman applies EXACTLY THE SAME to ALL men, and ALL women, despite their sexual orientation. What gays are asking for is something quite different, and although you've cited this ruling repeatedly, it makes no sense in this context.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

A law that marriage is between a man and a woman applies EXACTLY THE SAME to ALL men, and ALL women, despite their sexual orientation.

Really? Telling a gay man "You're free to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not another guy" sounds an awful lot like telling a black man "You're free to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not white."

You're denying people rights based on an innate characteristic of who they are. That's the very definition of discrimination.