Pete Stark on Gay Marriage Decision: 'I wonder what they're going to do with the Mormons.

Campaign Spot ^ | 05/16/2008 | Jim Gerahgty

[JRochelle]

Puhleeze!

Do you have evidence that he is an ex-Mormon?

Stark thinks like most people do, that there are still Mormon polygamists.

He is in fact correct in that area. He just has the FLDS and the LDS confused.

[JRochelle]

Ignore my last post.

I thought you were refering to Pete Stark as being ex-Mormon.

As for the gay guys on Survivor, no they didn’t say they were ex-Mormon.
The one guy said it was a real survivor, in his life having to deal with being Mormon and being gay.

[TheDon]

The one guy said it was a real survivor, in his life having to deal with being Mormon and being gay.

Feeling same sex attraction and not being able to act on it is no doubt tough.

[SunkenCiv]

:’) And heterophobia exists, homophobia doesn’t.

[BlackbirdSST]

You seem to be suggesting that in place of elections we should have a handful of elites make decisions for us.

What I am suggesting is (nothing else to be assumed), we are a Representative Republic. We are NOT a Mobocracy. You want Gay Marriage banned, it's time to amend Constitutions. The Legislature CANNOT make Law that stands contrary to that States Constitution. The Courts responded in kind and are 100% correct. The Mob attempted to rule (ain't democracy grand?) and were rightly smacked down.

No there is most definitely NOT anything in either document that bans gay marriage. Anything not specifically provided for in the constitution is left to the states to decide.

Correct!

This sentence actually works against your argument, not for it.

No it does not. It reinforces my above statements, rigidly! You want this Ban, amend your States Constitution. The Courts are removed from the process. Blackbird.

[HawaiianGecko]

"The Mob attempted to rule (ain't democracy grand?) and were rightly smacked down."

Good point!  Three judges were mobbed by the other four.

[RichInOC]

Pete, you can marry a man now too if you want.

Oh, sorry. I thought you asked what they were going to do with the morons. My bad.

[BlackbirdSST]

Good point! Three judges were mobbed by the other four.

So much for serious discussion. Blackbird.

[HawaiianGecko]

"Serious discussion?"

Let's see.  I agree with the opinion of the 3 dissenting judges.  That "Without foundation, the majority claims that to hold the domestic partnership laws constitutional would be a statement that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 118.) This is simply not so. The majority’s narrow and inaccurate assertions are just the opposite of what the Legislature intended.

To make its case for a constitutional violation, the majority distorts and diminishes the historic achievements of the DPA, and the efforts of those who worked so diligently to pass it into law. Domestic partnerships and marriages have the same legal standing, granting to both heterosexual and homosexual couples a societal recognition of their lifelong commitment. This parity does not violate the Constitution, it is in keeping with it. Requiring the same substantive legal rights is, in my view, a matter of equal protection. But this does not mean the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

The majority refers to the race cases, from which our equal protection jurisprudence has evolved. The analogy does not hold. The civil rights cases banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people through the states. ...  Here the situation is quite different. In less than a decade, through the democratic process, same-sex couples have been given the equal legal rights to which they are entitled.

But you on the other hand state matter of fact "The Court ruling was right."  That we were a "Mobocracy" attempting to rule and were slapped down.  Well, yippie-do-da.  Why the hell did the CA Supremes waste so much time deliberating this when all they had to do was ask you "Mr. Serious Discussion" what the true answer to this probing question might be.  Your flagrant use of mobocracy belies your underlying emotional not intellectual attachment to this ruling.

My statement that 4 judges mobbed the other 3 is extremely prescient particularly when coupled with your silly "mobocracy" comment.  These 3 judges may be correct, I think they are, but in our system the majority rules. And I'm quite fine with that.  You on the other hand believe majority votes are righteous when they are in your favor and "mob rule when not.  Now who is truly serious?

Equal protection is probably the most overused and misused amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I'll make an assumption that the equivalent section of the California constitution is likewise misused.  Think about it.  The 14th amendment to the USC was ratified in 1868 and it is extremely obvious that it was intended for slavery.  Why do I think that?  Simple, women couldn't vote until 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified.  Why did we need the 19th amendment?  After all we had the 14th that said "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So one can easily extrapolate that the equal protection granted in the 14th doesn't cover women, yet covers homosexuals and their right to marry.

[BlackbirdSST]

Perhaps you should just admit publicy that you have no clue what the term “Mobocracy” means. You could’ve saved yourself a significant amount of time. Good day! Blackbird.

[bpjam]

Sorry, I just can’t get on the anti-Mormon bandwagon. Know too many people who aren’t evil, polygamists or who drink the blood of children for me to be personally offended by their history, the history of Catholicism or anybody elses. If Islam would step into the current century, I would be willing to ignore their past sins as well.

[Rameumptom]

>>There have been 2 gay Mormons on the show Survivor. One of them even won!

The first guy had never been baptized so was lying about his status with the church. You fell for the lies. The second guy at one point said he was in process of excommunication. But since the church courts are confidential we don't get to hear the details. A man in my old ward was recently excommunicated when he left his wife and kids for a gay lover. Actually now that I think of it I probably don't want to hear the "details" of church court proceedings where they excommunicate gays. I feel bad for the Church court memebrs who are just regular lay memebrs who have to sit in council on this type of case. Ewwww.

I find the coments of some on this thread trying to slander mormons by equating them with gays ridiculous. Mormons, along with other religious conservatives groups, are some of the few that still promote the politically incorrect, but real possibility that gays can change the sexual orientation in conversion therapy.

[JRochelle]

So whenever some guy says he is mormon and gay, I should assume he is a liar?

Can’t one be celibate, gay and mormon?