Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
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'.
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.
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.
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'?
LOL -I am an ex Nav ET -boomers out of Holy Loch early 80s(no homosexuals LOL) 656 & 619 boats
Well, then, my premise does stand then. I just offered a scenario and asked which was preferable to you?
635 (deactivation and conversion, never went to sea on her). 702, 719, and 714. EM-type. Oh, btw, still no homosexuals, at least openly :-)
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.
They tried it in CA too, but the voting public didn't buy it. And neither should nitwit judges.
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.
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.
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
"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."
Yup -they would not last long at all -don't ask, don't tell, don't even imply...
???
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.)
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.
Of that, I have no doubt. :-}
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.
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.