Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
Fox News | March 14, 2005

Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War

Breaking...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 1996; aba; adoption; amendment; behavior; children; dma; doma; father; federal; fma; gaymarriage; glsen; homosexualagenda; hrc; lamda; legal; marriage; mother; orgasm; pedophile; pflag; ruling; samesexmarriage; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 421-438 next last
To: SilentServiceCPO
I believe that promiscuous, homosexual sex will lessen. I believe that a stable, gay couple living next door to me is preferable to a dysfunctional abusive couple.

I agree with the Judge's decision that given the current Calif constitution, there is no justifiable reason why non-hetro marriages should be denied. This, of course, is why the Calif constitution needs to be ammended, which then drives the need for the US constitutional ammendment since the 14th will be used to challenge any/all state constitutional bans, etc.

However, while the legal issues can be argued from a fairly straightfoward logical basis, you're demonstrating a certain level of naivete if you really believe that promiscuous, homosexual sex will lessen. Anyone who knows gays (and I've known plenty) can tell you firsthand that they are not balanced individuals. And it's not a reaction against 'society' judging them either.

We're only beginning to understand the chemical makeup of the brain. I have no doubt that science will eventually isolate the reasons (ie brain damage) that drives homosexuality. At the point, we'll see whether or not the gay lobby signs up to be 'cured'.

281 posted on 03/14/2005 5:27:54 PM PST by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It doesn't, anybody can marry as long as they meet the marriage requirements of the states and localities. To claim differently is simply wrong. Ergo, no discrimination.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I took the above statement to say that gay people could marry people of the opposite sex to get the civil benefits.

282 posted on 03/14/2005 5:28:38 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: OhioAttorney
And what I'd be disagreeing with is the lowering of the age of consent to twelve, not this or that definition of marriage.

If you're going to play word Aikido don't bother responding. YOU said if the marriage "wasn't legal" there's no marriage. And since the law is arbitrary and could be lowered to age 12 THEN you'd have to agree to it...because then it would be lawful. If can't admit that you're wasting everyones time which makes you a troll.

I tend to agree with SilentServiceCPO that states would still have a reasonable basis for not 'registering' marriages among close relatives.

Obviously that straw man argument is completely ridiculous and easily dismissed. If it's based on genetic defect possibilities obviously abortion is one remedy. Not to mention those who practice safe sex, have had hysterectomy or vasectomy should also be elegible. Still not good enough, then you must admit same-sex relatives should be allowed right?

How about prohibiting letting those who have genetic defects from marring since they pass their defect on at a 95% rate, much more dangerous than incest.

Waiting patiently for you to change your agument a third time, it seems your style.

283 posted on 03/14/2005 5:30:49 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO

Thats correct, it's the law. Just like foreign citizens can marry Americans to get their tickets punched. It's the law decided on by the American people through their elected represntatives, not unelected judges. Of necessity, changing the meaning of marriage to include same sex couple will open that gate even wider. Comprende'?


284 posted on 03/14/2005 5:33:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: lemura
While certainly the conjunction of the libido of young males coupled with the lure of guilt-free sex will ensure that some amount of promiscuity will continue, I stand by my belief that I think that it will lessen significantly. I also know many gay individuals, a few of them are close family members, and from what I have observed, after they get past that "I'm young, free, and want to party" stage, they just want the same as anyone else, a quiet, love-filled, productive life.
285 posted on 03/14/2005 5:36:30 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO

LOL -I am an ex Nav ET -boomers out of Holy Loch early 80s(no homosexuals LOL) 656 & 619 boats


286 posted on 03/14/2005 5:38:07 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Well, then, my premise does stand then. I just offered a scenario and asked which was preferable to you?


287 posted on 03/14/2005 5:38:49 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

635 (deactivation and conversion, never went to sea on her). 702, 719, and 714. EM-type. Oh, btw, still no homosexuals, at least openly :-)


288 posted on 03/14/2005 5:41:15 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

You misunderstand. I was not talking about what someone thinks. I'm fine with that. I was asking for the source of what the original poster said was fact--and I happen to know is not. I want someone to educate me about how gays "have" all those things he lists. They just flat out don't. It's the difference between knowing what you're talking about or not knowing. It's not about what you think.


289 posted on 03/14/2005 5:41:21 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: hondo1951
here in massachusetts, the gays circumvented the electoral process by equating their plite with the civil rights amendment of 1964

They tried it in CA too, but the voting public didn't buy it. And neither should nitwit judges.

290 posted on 03/14/2005 5:41:58 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
Look, I don't know how much clearer I can be. You don't make a logical argument.

You are the one that wants to change the law. Either that or you are a supporter of judical activism, well hell let's call it like it is, judicial tyranny.

That means it is incumbent on you to convince me why. I find your argument that the current law permits a straight man to marry a homosexual femal thouroughly unconvincing and I've shown you why.

There is nothing you can say or do that will convince me that judges know best. You may someday cobble together a majority who support homoseaual "marriage" but that day isn't today.

In the meantime you and the judges drive more and more folks toward amending the US Constitution. Keep it up.

291 posted on 03/14/2005 5:44:41 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Just because a couple of big companies and cities offer gay partners insurance rights does not mean you can claim "Gays have insurance rights." They don't have it as a "right" at all, and so you are misinforming your readers or can't tell the difference yourself.


Anyway, it's the exact opposite of what you say. ("Gays don't want tolerance, they want equivalence.") As I understand it, gays want the EQUIVALENCE, as in same rights. Whether or not you personally tolerate them, they couldn't give a sh*t.


292 posted on 03/14/2005 5:44:51 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Odyssey-x
This is great news for the republicans. The anti-gay marriage backlash will continue to push more and more of them into office just as it did in the last election. I also can't think of a better issue for getting minorities to vote for republicans.

Maybe not. It appears the judge was appointed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/14/state/n162642S50.DTL

293 posted on 03/14/2005 5:46:55 PM PST by obnogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

"On the other side one could argue that too many legislatures are attempting to enact unconstitutional laws."

These laws are not unconstitutional and everybody, even the judges making the rulings pretending to say as much, know it.

These laws don't violate a Constitutional clause, they violate the Liberal egalitarian social engineers' beknighted sense of right and wrong.

In other words, its not "these are unconstitutional, therefore they are bad law" ... its "these are bad laws therefore they are unconstitutional."


294 posted on 03/14/2005 5:47:18 PM PST by WOSG (Liberating Iraq - http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
Oh, btw, still no homosexuals, at least openly :-)

Yup -they would not last long at all -don't ask, don't tell, don't even imply...

295 posted on 03/14/2005 5:47:25 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: nosofar

???

Well, now I can't figure out what you are trying to say you meant to say instead. Could you just say the whole sentence of what you meant to say originally? (I know what my two lines were. Just give me the first response you meant to make.)


296 posted on 03/14/2005 5:49:58 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I agree with you completely. I do not like judicial activism either, and my argument wasn't offered as a legal justification of homosexual union either, but rather as a practical one. I understand that you and I are on opposite sides of this issue and I realize that I won't change you mind. And as for a Constitutional Amendment, I also agree, that is the way to go, keep the judges out of it as much as possible (of course I think that our versions of that amendment would differ slightly, LOL)
297 posted on 03/14/2005 5:51:22 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
No one here is promoting sex with minors.

Of course not. Incrementalism doesn't work that way.

Whether or not it is illegal in Europe makes no difference.

I guess you haven't heard our Supreme Court justices espousing International Law instead of the US constitution. Of course what happens in Europe makes a difference, because we are always told that they do it in Europe so we should do it here. Doesn't matter whether the subject is higher taxes, universal health care, or Our antiquated morality.

298 posted on 03/14/2005 5:55:42 PM PST by w1andsodidwe (Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
...of course I think that our versions of that amendment would differ slightly, LOL

Of that, I have no doubt. :-}

299 posted on 03/14/2005 5:56:19 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

What's "right and wrong" changes every day. It used to be "right" to make blacks sit in the back of the bus...

/disclaimer: I am NOT trying to equate race with sexuality, I am just using the example to illustrate that what society views as "right" or "wrong" changes with time.


300 posted on 03/14/2005 5:56:49 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 421-438 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson