California Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

1. 80

   LiamBeanposted 13 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o

   replyreport
   1. 61

      susanlangposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      @Liam I watched the video!

      replyreport
      1. 80

         LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I've seen few arguments so well made.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            susanlangposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            @ LiamBean:  Hope you have a wonderful Labor Day.. and I'm glad you saw it that way... thanks

            replyreport
   2. 72

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      (like)  *click*
      
      (This is me clicking the nonexistent "like" button.)

      replyreport
      1. 80

         LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You copy the link into your URL and click OK or LOAD.

         replyreport
2. 0

   RFoxposted 13 years ago

   So glad I live in Canada.

   replyreport
3. 61

   JayDeckposted 13 years ago

   There is simply nothing in the constitution that allows for  discrimination against homosexuals. It is beyond me how so many people keep supporting the denial of equal protection for all. I suspect that many of them are also the "constitutionalist" conservatives we have been hearing so much from lately, which tells me they have little understanding of the constitution they aim to protect.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There is simply nothing in the Constitution that allows for the legal sanction of perversion.  It's beyond me how many people try to equate the homosexual agenda with black civil rights and innate human rights.  I think they're among those who have fallen into step with the progressive agenda of Barack Obama and are trying to twist our Constitution to fit their own devious purposes.  It infringes upon the pursuit of the happiness of conservatives who want America to keep at least some semblance of decency in its rules of conduct.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Because you believe it is "perversion," does not mean that it is.  You may even have a religious basis for thinking so, and who am I to say that it is wrong?  But the real issue is not your private beliefs but how our government should treat gay people.   
         
         You may not like being in a workplace with an openly gay person or being in a restaurant with them, and you are entitled to have your private dislikes.  You are also entitled to dislike people of a certain race.  We are entitled to hate or dislike anything we want.  The issue is how our government should treat gay people.  Our Constitution does not permit a Christian nation and our laws will not advance a Christian agenda. 
         
         "Perversion" is subject to a lot of room for disagreement.  For hundreds of years people considered interracial marriage perverse and there were laws punishing people for entering into such marriages.  Sometimes they were prosecuted for the marriage itself, but in many cases these people were charged with sex crimes.  The majority of the states had anti-miscegenation laws in the early part of the 20th century, and by 1967, 16 states still had them and regularly enforced them.  During the time of the civil war, one key argument raised by anti-abolitionists was that freeing slaves would lead to interracial marriage.  They were right.  Values change.  Some people may still find interracial marriage perverse and they are entitled to feel that way.  But there is a substantive difference between what you consider perverted and what kind of laws that are consistent with our Constitution.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You might want to go read Louis Farrakhan's letter about reparation.  In it, he says basically that "white women" aren't enough of a reparation gift to black men, that there needs to be more power and more reparation to the black population.
            
            Now, I know not all blacks follow Mr. F.'s views, but I've written this so that you'll maybe understand that neither do all whites think racial intermarriage is "perverse".  I don't think it's perverse.  But indeed it would be perverse if either the black person or the white person looked at it from the angle Mr. F. put forth.  And he has many followers.  Is his view also valid, Sylvie?   I actually call his view perverted.
            
            And anyway, legitimate civil rights (for blacks, or whites, or anyone else) aren't equivalent to the gay agenda.  I can't believe how many people allow that agenda to ride the coattails of the civil rights movement.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               From my point of view, your views are a perversion of nornalcy.  Religion has twisted your mind away from what I consider a normal and desirable human state.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Were you planning on responding to my post?  I said that people historically and even today have had differences in opinion whether interracial marriage is perverse.  Your belief that homosexuality is perverse is an interesting bit of personal color but has nothing to do with how our laws should treat gay people.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure it does.
                  Gay people in the U.S.A aren't subjected to prosection for being gay, like someone else who, say, commits lewd behavior in public.  They have the privilege of doing whatever they want to in the privacy of their homes or even other people's homes if they have permission.  They have the same rights to vote, to work, to be respected as persons, to join the military, to do anything that any other citizen does.  But they do not have the right to change the definition of what marriage is, nor do they have the right to FORCE their morally-unacceptable activities nor views onto people who do not want those views shoved in their faces, and they do not have the right to call "civil" what is so blatantly uncivilized.
                  
                  Again, no one is trying to prosecute them for what they do in private.   If they REALLY want a "civil rights" fight, like I've said before, they should GO to some other Nation that DOES prosecute people just for advocating homosexuality, and PROTECT the LIVES of those oppressed people.   But no, they want to stay in America and OPPRESS straight people;  that's so much easier, what with a perverse-speaking President we have who instigates the idea that gay "rights" is akin to black rights.
                  What a crock!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Right.  Gays are in America "oppressing" straight people.  They should all get on a boat and go to another country.  Fantastic.
                     
                     You believe they are worthy of respect yet you call them uncivilized perverts.  You have an interesting meaning of the word respect.  You also have an interesting meaning of the word "oppression."  There was a window of time in California where gay marriage was legal and a number of couples got married during that window.  I count several of these couples among my friends.  You are not required to befriend these couples.  You don't need to hang out with them in social settings or have lunch with them.  They can live in your neighborhood but you don't have to have them over for tea.  How are you oppressed by couples that you don't know getting married?
                     
                     Since the 1700s, marriage was defined as a marriage between people of the same race.  There were laws on the books that were enforced to criminally punish couples of different races that chose to marry.  Sometimes they were punished for the act of marriage...other times they faced criminal charges for engaging in sex crimes...perverts that they are.  These penalties applied in the majority of states through the early part of the 20th century, and by 1967 still applied in 16 states.  How dare mixed race couples oppress the majority by trying to change the definition of marriage?  The outrage!  No one is obstructing their freedom to practice jungle love in the privacy of their own homes.  But by trying to change the definition of marriage they are oppressing the majority!  Why don't those perverts get on a boat and go to another country (Liberia perhaps) and stop oppressing us? 
                     
                     Before the Civil War, anti-abolitionists argued that when the founding fathers used the phrase "All men are created equal," the word "men" meant only white men.  This argument was made with great force by Judge Douglas during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  If you read the secession declarations of a number of states (e.g., Texas), they specifically make the argument that blacks never fit the historical definition of man.  Douglas also argued that if you started tinkering with the definition of what "men" were, it was a slippery slot to interracial marriage.  He was right.  Rather than tinkering with the definition of man, why didn't all those wacky abolitionists just get on a boat and leave the country rather than oppressing good white folk?   
                     
                     Definitions change.  As a technical matter, btw, the California Constitution did not say marriage was between men and women.  It was silent on the subject.  Under Proposition 8, anti-gay-marriage groups amended the language of the California Constitution to change the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman.  It's a small point and not really important to the core issues but since you are so worked up over definitions I thought you should know.

                     replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That has to be one of the most astounding comments I have ever read or heard.
         
         An amazing example of "I'm right, you're wrong and everybody should have to live their life as I decree and think is right".  It just comes right out and says it all -  "Anyone that doesn't live my kind of life is perverted, unconstitutional, indecent and interfering with right-thinking conservatives".  Well done Brenda!

         replyreport
      3. 59

         Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ok Brenda
         Have it your way.
         I just decided to proclaim my homosexuality my religion. And my "Perversion" is one of my religious practices. So...if the constitution was twisted for the devious purpose of protecting Black civil rights and the religious rights of sc#m suckiing, Sh@t eating Christians; the Constitution should now protects me to get married and live a decent life in my pursuit of happiness.
         
         Or...you can just admit Proposition 8 is dead and gone and there is no sane argument to defend it!

         replyreport
4. 57

   onlinearticlespkposted 13 years ago

   there is

   replyreport
5. 61

   mikelongposted 13 years ago

   "Legitimate civil rights"......
   
   I cannot think of a more oppressed group over time than homosexuals....
   
   I cannot understand Brenda how you can try to pass yourself off as an American while failing to understand our most basic principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....
   
   What ever happened to inalienable rights?
   
   If only Brenda can look to nature, perhaps to the Bonobo, and find that the concept of "sexuality" is very open...  So much for the arguments commonly used by "religionists" that homosexuality is "unnatural"...
   
   And if God created the Bonobo...and other creatures that practice "liberal" sex....what does that say about the true nature of God?
   
   I think the Bonobos have it figured out...and we can learn a lot through them...

   replyreport
6. 66

   goldenpathposted 13 years ago

   The latest from California is an absurdity and a clear indicator of a falling republic.  It is dangerous territory to tread when one judge can overrule the voice of the people.  This is the fad of the day.  When minorities get self conscious and flustered they shout "discrimination" and scrape in the money to buy power and influence.  NOT influence of the people but influence of those in power.  This is unAmerican in the extreme.  You are to peacefully influence your cause to the minds of the people.  If you are overruled you live according to the voice or law of the people.  You don't subvert the process by buying judges and destroying the very fabric of liberty.  Minorities often do not see the lasting damage they are doing just to satisfy their ego and desire for "accomplishment."  In my opinion this has nothing to do with homosexuality or whether it's "natural" or not.  To me it's a true liberty issue and the malicious tactics to bring down the voice of the people.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wasn't there a strong Utah-Mormon financial influence in getting prop 8 passed?
      
      Just askin.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Getting it passed - no.  However, we were heavily at work in getting the message into the eyes and ears of Californians.  We work very close, very close, with many religious denominations - even the Catholic faith and the voice of the people was heard.  Campaigns for initiatives take time and money there's no doubt.  Yes, big financial support came from many faiths to help influence the people and bring them to an awareness of the intended intitution of marriage and the family unit.
         
         One judge with a flaxen cord around his neck from a minority changed and trashed the voice of the people.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "One judge with a flaxen cord around his neck from a minority changed and trashed the voice of the people."
            
            I'm not absolutely sure about this, I wasn't there. But, I heard that back in the good ole days of lynchings, sometimes, the whole town would attend, bring the children, and cook barbecue.
            
            That one judge represents the third branch of our government. That one judge decided you can no longer have mob rule against the gay people of this country. Don't you get it? At some point in time, Christian were killed just for being Christians, Jew were killed just for being Jews, Christians slaughtered Muslims by the thousands!
            
            There may again, come a day, when you will want that ONE JUDGE to stand up and protect you and your rights and maybe your life.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's a very odd take on things...

            replyreport
   2. 90

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You don't know how our system works, do you?  You don't know that iit was designed to PREVENT mob rule.
      
      Well, it has only been this way for a few hundred years, so I guess that is understandable.  Probably has not reached Conservative literature yet.  You guys just hate change abd who can blame you?  Next thing, they'll be kissing in public!

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You appear to have no understanding of the Constitution or how our system of laws work.  Ours is not a system of direct democracy where we take a poll on every particular issue of the day and the majority vote gets it.  There are numerous checks and balances in our system to protect minority views and to temper fears that the framers had about the danger of unfettered majority rule.  The judiciary is only one of these checks.  You talk about it as the "fad of the day" when the function of the judiciary is not new at all.  Sometimes it may work in your favor and sometimes it may work against you.  I love your comment about how the judge was "bought."  After educating yourself about our political process, our legal system, and the Constitution, perhaps you should start working on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and the legal doctrines under which the opinion was issued.  There is no evidence that Vauhn Walker was bought.  He is not an elected official, and need not worry about public opinion at all.  Perhaps you may not like that he is unaccountable, but that is exactly how the system was designed.  He is a respected judge here in the Northern District of California.  He is considered conservative and independent-minded.  He was originally nominated to the bench by Reagan and was ultimately appointed during the presidency of Bush Sr.  He did what he thought was correct under the law, and if that decision was erroneous it will be decided on appeal.

      replyreport
7. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 66

      goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's pure ignorance.
      
      The Latter-day Saints do not engage in polygamy.  Those you've read about are fundamentalists, an off-shoot of the mainstream Church from over a hundred years ago.  In fact, it is specifically stated that if ANY member of the Church were to engage in such activity they WILL be excommunicated.
      
      Again, pure ignorance.  Had those people parading those signs even studied a "little" bit before letting their emotions run wild as they nail the poster to the stick they probably would look as ignorant as they do.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Did the church willingly denounce polygamy?  Did it have ulterior motives?

         replyreport
         1. 66

            goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Denounce the practice?  The practice as is put forth today is not as it was in the beginning.  This practice is denounced as it is conjured among certain sects (not just the FLDS). 
            
            Decades of ridicule and infliction finally paramounted to a full-blown threat of confiscation of all church property and it's leaders jailed just for exercising their freedom of religion.  To ensure the survival of the church at that time the practice was halted and strict assertions against renegades acting in the practice.  There were no other motives except that of survival of the church.  It gets no clearer than that.  To preserve the church, to preserve ORDER in the country and to exercise faith in the end result of all things this practice was discontinued.
            
            To everyone included:  Though I am not of the orientation I do not deny you the right to practice such orientation.  I believe "to each his/her own."  My position is simple.  The institution of marriage is traditionally between man and woman.  That - is the healthy union through which to raise a healthy posterity.  Is that the only way? Of course not!  But it is the right way if not faith based than just pure biological.  Get real.  Practice what you want but don't reinvent the wheel just so you can have your own dazzling convertible.
            
            Degradation of society begins and ends with the compromise of all facets of ORDER within that society.  Since the turn of the 20th century we have been engaged in these compromises in high gear.  We've compromised our standings with everything from abortion to gun control to even the energy policy. We are left but a very few who uphold traditional values cherished by our Fathers.  Keep this in mind as you wear your colorful wigs and toss the confetti of triumph. 
            
            Not too long ago I compromised my standing by advocating civil unions.  Now I reject this because I found myself denying those traditional values that Americans used to cherish.  I now deny civil unions as I do common law between two people.  A man and a woman in cohabitation should do so with strict fidelity within the bonds and vows of marriage.  These are traditional values and if people don't stand up for them who will.
            
            Please don't lecture on my learnings of the judicial system.  It's a pointless debate.  The problem is much more fundamental than that.  No minds are going to be changed in this debate only hurt feelings.  I understand that your orientation is personal as it is with all of us, and that it makes each of our standings on the issue a sore subject to deal with in a spirit of calmness and without offense.
            
            Thanks for allowing me to offer my opinion on the subject.

            replyreport
8. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

   There should be a better vetting process than what we now have.   It's insanity to let intentional immorality be left out of the criteria required to dismiss becoming the judge of all the citizens' rights.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure what your post means exactly.  That judges need to agree with your moral views before they are appointed?  They are not appointed to resolve disputes according to your moral code. 
      
      They are appointed to resolve disputes regarding the law and the Constitution.  I think you need to start with working towards a Constitutional Amendment to remove the barriers between Church and State.  Then you can make America a Christian theocracy.  Then you can enforce pick judges that will enforce Christian morality under our laws.

      replyreport
9. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
10. 61

    Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

    

    replyreport
11. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Goldenpath,
    Would you be so kind as to explain exactly how
    "We've compromised our standings with everything from abortion to gun control to even the energy policy??????
    I don't mean to be dense here, but I fail to see how energy policy could possibly degrade society or threaten the "order" you hold so dear.
    But I am willing to hear your explanation.
    Thank you, MM

    replyreport
12. 61

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    The "values" that Americans have cherished can be found within the pages of "Celie: A slave".
    
    I'm not so sure that's a good model to follow....
    
    The American past needs not be repeated...it is time for all of us to be serious about the creation of the American future... If you are looking over your shoulder for your inspiration, you have already been left behind.
    
    Be a part of the solution goldenpath, as opposed to part of the ongoing problem...

    replyreport