One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Judge overturns the voted on and rejected prposition 8 in california.

Personally I dont mind gay marrage but this is tyranny.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...OR3D.DTL&tsp=1

I take it, than, you raged and raged against Gore v Bush (or was it Bush v Gore)?

[August]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I take it, than, you raged and raged against Gore v Bush (or was it Bush v Gore)?

Don't be such a bitter Nancy. Your boy lost. You're just going to have to live with it...

[krashkart]

Why not just agree that gays and lesbians have a right to be legally married? It's really that simple. What complicates the matter is when people get upset over the fact that gays and lesbians want to be legally, legitimately married. There is nothing wrong with them wanting a legal marriage. If we deny them that right, we should also deny ourselves that right in order to maintain equilibrium. Fair is fair.

[Moeceefus]

Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Used to be. Not too long from now I'm sure this issue will used to be as well.

[Aramike]

Well, my point's been adequately made. I have several of you who, in principle agree with me on everything but the word used. You unrelentingly come back again and again as to first how the word is not important to be concerned with but yet is somehow pivotal.

And just like most of the rest of the nation who's on the fence, I'm going to tune you out, screw compromise, and vote "no" when the term marriage appears on the ballot, thusly depriving others of certain "rights" because they refuse to respect the traditions of those who's assent they seek.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

those who's assent they seek.

And we've come full circle. It's not your permission to give. Their rights don't exist because you allow it or asset to it. And that's why this garbage law got thrown out on its ear, and why it will receive the same treatment from SCOTUS.

Having consumed buckets of Internet popcorn reading every post on this thread, had to add $0.02. Living in a jurisdiction where marriage is legal between any two human beings past the legal minimums and without sharing too much of the same DNA it might surprise some to know that the world never came to a screeching halt when same sex marriages became the law of the land. The sun still appears to rise in the east and set in the west, families come together and bust apart as has been the norm for generations.

There is no "gay marriage" and "straight marriage", only one version for all, a legal marriage. The ball and the chain are now gender neutral.

Ministers of a church who object are not required to perform same sex marriages any more than a Catholic priest has a legal obligation to perform (for example) Jewish marriage rites. That should keep any existing gods happy even if it enrages some of their followers.

All are equal under the law and yet civil society has not imploded. Besides, now we're seeing some neat divorce cases with custody battles, property fights and hurt feelings to rival anything men and women have ever cooked up.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And we've come full circle. It's not your permission to give. Their rights don't exist because you allow it or asset to it. And that's why this garbage law got thrown out on its ear, and why it will receive the same treatment from SCOTUS.

First off, I think you're being extraordinarily presumptive regarding how SCOTUS will rule.

Secondly, marriage is not a Constitutional right - that is why states are attempting to Constitutionally define it, whether you agree with it or not.

And finally, "why this garbage law got thrown it" has more to do with the interpretation of a single judge than it does any absolute, fundamantal moral answer to a question. The assert otherwise is absurd.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Secondly, marriage is not a Constitutional right - that is why states are attempting to Constitutionally define it, whether you agree with it or not.

Please define "Constitutional right".

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Secondly, marriage is not a Constitutional right

SCOTUS disagrees:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Meaning that it's innate and doesn't need to be granted to us by the Constitution. What the states are trying to do is restrict and deprive humans of their innate rights - and why those laws will ultimately be struck down.