Posted on 08/04/2010 2:15:45 PM PDT by JoeProBono
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A person close to the case says a federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I have no problem with people having moral or religious objections to this but if that's the case, where's the outrage about divorce? The New Testament has some strong words about that.
Put it this way -- I have no problem with people who don't eat pork for religious reasons but I don't want anybody voting on whether I can eat bacon.
I do care as I have kids and I do nto want this crap taught in the school or even have my kids see this kind of crap.
You’re supporting freedom etc then are you supporting freedom to have more than one wife at the same time?
Shall men have 9 wives at the same time and kids have 9 mothers?
Hey why not have a father marry his 18 year old daughter if she wants to .
is that the freedom you are supporting and as for you saying you do not care then you better sit down and think what you’re supporting
We’re talking about two men who get off sexually by poking each other up the butt and then thwy want to play happy families . So they get a child and bring that child up seeing two men in bed in the morning, kissing holding each other etc
You better care because this is where all of this crap is going
cut the crap you know damn well what he meant to say and it meant to say one man with one woman at the same time
you’re playing the DU kook word game now.
Do you support two of the same sex getting married at the same time?
yes or no you don’t have to explain.
I get that Filo. I was anti-gay for a long time. Then I reunited with a dear friend who informed me he was married.....to a man! They have adopted three special needs kids, two of whom wont live past their early 20’s. These kids were institutionalized. No heterosexuals would adopt them. Two are wheelchair bound for life. They now live in a home with pets and activities and loving parents who can afford the extra care they need. Institution vs. Home??
I am Christian. I am conservative. This is a battle that is personal to me and I refuse to throw my friend under the bus simply because many of my conservative friends will label me liberal. His family deserves benefits. I wont force my Christian vlaues upon him or anyone else.
I can certainly disagree with gay marriage without forcing that opinion onto another human who does not. Christ is my judge and theirs. He loves them...period. You all would do well to remember that when you preach your faith while calling them names such as “faggot.” What I will not do, however, is accept judicial activism from judges ruling against the will of the people. They spoke in California twice.
you better sort this far left name calling crap out
homophobe means to live in fear to be afraid of .
I don’t live in fear nor am I afraid so cut the crap hey.
You said you don’t care but you sure are putting all the far lefts perverted arguments up on here.
Do you support two of the same sex getting married and having kids?
simple question yes or no
Strangely enough, you're arguing that the government should have the power to tell people who they can marry, who can enter into legal contracts, etc.
If we can vote on who can get married, why can't we vote on each individual marriage. I know several couples I'd vote against ;)
Conseratism is not a choice. Sociologists lump me in to the group called conservative because of my beliefs, morals and convictions. I didn’t go anywhere to sign up to be conservative. We are putting the cart before the horse because the decision is not out and there may be some valid and sound reasoning, I doubt it, but who knows. Unfortunately, the courts have lost so much respect through their activism we doubt their sincerity before we know the facts.
so do you think a father can marry his daughter aged 18?
Can a man have 9 wives?
freedom is what you want right, pursuit of happiness for them right.
I look forward to your answers
From now on, the people in California who oppose gay marriage had better watch what is going on in California schools like hawks. Here in Massachusetts, we no sooner had gay marriage imposed on us by “judicial fiat” than they began to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarten.
http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html
Filo,
I hear what you are saying about the “rule of law”, but the problem is, whose “rule of law” are we talking about? By that I mean, what is the rule of law established upon anyway? If the rule of law is open to anyone’s interpretation, then the “rule of law” becomes, in my opinion, meaningless.
To put it another way, if marriage can be redefined by the courts - which is the ultimate logical consequence if Prop 8 is held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, then upon what rational basis can any kind of marriage be denied? Do the courts now define our morality and values for us? Isn’t that the consequence of of all of this?
Upon what legal basis can a Christian church refuse to perform same-sex marriages? If this Federal courts ruling stands isn’t it going to be true that people who believe homosexuality to be a sin are now legally defined as criminals because they believe something that goes against the Federal Courts opinion of what is Constitutional? I really don’t believe the so-called “separation of church and state” is going to matter much on this issue.
Ultimately, someone’s values are going to win out - unfortunately, the values of the majority of the people of California, who followed their state’s constitutional process (rule of law) lost out. This ruling has just said the majority of citizens of a State do not have the right to define what marriage is based on their moral values - no, this court has ruled on a practical level that only the Federal Courts can do that.
Our “rights” are rapidly being established upon a foundation of sand - the whims of judicial fiat.
If a man is dumb enough to want nine wives, he deserves what he gets ;) The issue we're discussing is equality under the law. Currently, no one can marry nine people of either sex. What gays want is no different from the rights of heterosexuals -- they aren't asking to marry nine people nor are they asking for 'special' rights.
A marriage is between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. It has nothing to do with polygamy (though as I said, have at it with the nine wives).
I was swayed by Ted Olsen's (no liberal) argument -- what is more conservative than settling down with someone for the rest of your life?
Upon what legal basis can a Christian church refuse to perform same-sex marriages?
Sandy: Seperation of church and state. They can get married legally at the courthouse. Did Rome define morality for the Jews? No.
You referred to the law. I asked which law. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage that I am aware of.
Wow, who could’ve seen that one coming? I mean, the chief judge of the Ninth Circus Sort of Schlemeils rules against the law, against the constitution, against the clear will of the people, and against the history of society. I bet such a thing will never happen again (sarc).
why if a daughter aged 21 wants to marry her father why not, ?
You say that marriage is between two people so why not them?
You have no problem with a man having 9 wives , well OK
Homosexuals have defined marriage so why not this daughter, why not a man with 9 wives?
You are simply choosing what you think marriage should be and yet you say why should Govt get to say who gets married?
We either have one man between one woman which the founding fathers would have wanted and which we have had since the birth of this great nation or we have all sorts of marriage there is no picking which you like because you have a friend which want a certain kind.
For the record I want normal traditional straight marriage and for those seeking to get off sexually and do unnatural acts then they need mental help and so does anyone who thinks it’s normal to poke another guy up the butt
re: Upon what legal basis can a Christian church refuse to perform same-sex marriages?
Sandy: Seperation of church and state. They can get married legally at the courthouse. Did Rome define morality for the Jews? No.
But you should know as well as any that sooner or later churches will be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against California’s prop 8. A church cannot violate the Constitution of the U.S. If the Court rules that states may not define what marriage is, then they’ve just, by fiat, declared that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right throughout the land. That will become the “rule of law”.
The rule of law? LMAO!!!!
The rule of law is meaningless when terms can be redefined and policies implementing said laws can be reinterpreted counter to original intent.
The 'rule of law' you support in this case is the rule of the tyrant progressive mob. Common law has for centuries defined marriage -this innovative ruling spits in the face of the law...
Homophobia: The natural revulsion that unnatural acts invite in most people.
Does that help?
Uses term "homophobe" - check Supports "homosexual marriage" - check
Leftist much?
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.