RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The will of the people has no meaning in California, again

Judge Vaughn Walker’s opinion and order striking down California's ban on gay marriage can be found here. I'm a big believer in states' rights in this area. I think states should be able to legalize gay marriage within their borders through the legislative or electoral process.

I also think they should be able to regulate and, in some cases, ban gay marriages, just as they can ban marriages between adults and minors and between incestuous couples.

Judge Walker, however, was clearly more interested from the beginning in creating a right that directly benefited himself and others of his bent. As National Review notes, under Walker's decision:

[In effect, (e)]verything that plaintiffs’ “experts” say is beyond dispute. E.g.: “[T]he evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.” “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” (I would have thought that it’s equally clear that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief” that the laws against murder should protect all persons.) Judge Walker makes little or no reference to the fact that nearly all of plaintiffs’ “experts” are political activists for gay causes and that many or most are in same-sex relationships. They’re just neutral experts. In the same way that Walker is just a neutral judge.

The case will next go the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, hopefully, thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court. We can only hope that President Obama hasn't had a chance to add a few more Elena Kagans to the high court before then.

The individual's constitutional right supercedes a majority vote. For those that don't believe couples of the same sex shouldn't marry, don't marry somebody from the same sex. It's that simple.

Marriage isn't a right. Its as simple as that.

Guess it is in California. Simple as that.

You're an idiot.

It should be noted this judge was nominated by Reagan and renominated (twice) by Bush.

It should be noted that changing a thread title doesn't make it true.

A right is something you are entitled to. You are not entitled to marry. If that was true, I could demand the government to marry who ever I wanted. Is that what you want?

Yeah the right to marriage works the same way for gays as it does for straights. You have the right to get married but you still have to find somebody that also wants to marry you.

No, gay marriage is still illegal in a lot of states, straight marriage isn't.


Its funny how I can prove you wrong on every single one of your points, isn't it?

And I don't have to edit my posts to prove you wrong either.

For now. In time that will change though.

Not if people like you keep trying to shove your beliefs down everyones throats through slander and hate.

I'm not the one trying to mess with somebody else wanting to get married. If you don't like same sex marriage than don't marry somebody from the same sex.

Neither am I.



I'm not against gay marriage. I'm for the constitution. There's a difference.

I'm for the constitution too.

Is it lying if you don't understand what you're saying?

Oh I think you understand what you're saying

Isn't rex black? I guess he'd be cool if there were still laws against interracial marriage because the same arguments were used to oppose that.

I see the libtards have moved onto the "lets say something so stupid it can't be replied to) discussion.

moved onto it?

i see you guys are still clinging to the "let's insult them when they point out we're hypocrites."



As to the whole notion that a court making rulings undermines the constitution. Well that's why we have courts, why we have the 3rd branch of government. Courts make rulings as to whether a new law fits within the freedoms of the constitution and it's a constantly evolving sense based on the advancment of society.
As the only person on this thread who actually voted on prop 8 I can say that it was very misleading. Had I not been up to date on the facts I might have been confused as many people were. What happened was that the courts ruled that banning same sex marriage was a violation of rights, then a bunch of christian conservatives got a lot of money from out of state organizations to put prop 8 on the ballot and flooded the airwaves with warnings about gay marriage destroying life as we know it and it passed with I think 51%. Afterwards there were a lot of complaints because people thought that in voting for prop 8 they were voting for gay marriage not realizing they were voting for making it illegal.
Hardly the "will of the people." And should voters really get to vote on what rights minority groups do and do not have? The only reason to ban gay marriage is due to religion. No one at any point is trying to force churches to perform gay marriages, these marriages are conducted in government buildings and bring in a lot of money to the state through licensing fees and tourism.
Personally I was there in 2004 when they first started the ceremonies at SF city hall and I saw the protests in 2008. It's just a nice group of people who want to be happy and treated equally, not belittled or discriminated against.

We went over this ad nauseum several years ago, and more than once.

As noted then, the laws against gay marriage are not particularly different than the prohibitions against polygamy and incest (at least when carried out by consenting adults). Each one is illegal wholly by legistative act of the government in defining which marital relations are legal and which aren't.

If courts start striking down gay marriage, on the idea that it's a "right," or "privilege," it becomes more and more difficult for courts to uphold the statutes that make incest and polygamy illegal.

This is why such things should be left to the legislature and the ballot box, and not by the creation of "rights" that aren't mentioned in the constitution.

and you were wrong ad nauseum years ago. incest has a blood relation and serious concerns regarding inbreeding, and polygamy requires multiple partners. gay marriage is basically in line with people of different races marrying in that it's two adults who want to be together and can't due to a federally protected status (federally one can't be discriminated against based on race or gender, correct?)
The only argument that can be made is religious which has no place in the law.

That's a distinction without meaning. In both gay marriage and polygamy the argument is that consenting adults have a right to marry whomever they want and that the government has no right to regulate private conduct in the bedroom.

Explain how a court can say gay marriage is harmless but polygamy is dangerous, especially given that some cultures practice polygamy.

At best, you might get one of those "but polygamists are crazy cultists who often marry underaged kids." And that is probably true in some cases. But an argument could also be made that some gays abuse kids also.

So, again, it's a distinction without meaning.

Those kind of meaningless distinctions, in the realm of courts, typically lead to either the ruling being overturned (and the matter returned to the legislature) or expanded in ways that weren't intended.

you cut out the part where I concluded my point. So I'll retype it to make you feel special and even reword it so it feels fresh. In polygamy and incest there are different factors. With gay marriage you basically have the same argument that was used against marriage between races. Replace race with gender and it really is the same argument. Race and gender are both qualified as a federally protected status and therefore you can't allow one without the other.
THere have been plenty of studies to say gay marriage is not going to cause a problem and children raised in such homes will turn out better than with a single parent. They will do whatever they want in the bedroom, banning marriage is just religious people forcing their views on others and spreading misery. No wonder it's the talking point you've been sticking with for years. You make foolish arguments and then ignore the responses so you can repeat your idiocy...ad nasueum.

Race and gender aren't the same.

Race is an artificial construct based on nothing but a few cosmetic physical features, such as skin color. People of different "races" can, and do, breed and procreate as a result of sexual activity.

Gender is a basic difference that goes down to the chromosomes. If two people are not of different genders (male and female), no procreation or breeding can occur. Sexual activity can occur. But not procreation.

And, again, you still haven't drawn a meaningful distinction between gay marriage and polygamy. At best, you've raised some sort of vague "it's wrong because it's wrong" argument which really just boils down to the same sort of religious argument that you readily dismiss in the case of gay marriage.

Seriously...why do some straight people get so wound up over this?

I'm straight (except when we're talking about Jaburg, SOM, or Rob...then, I'm gay) and I couldn't give a FUCK less about gays getting married.

I know the Republicans make a big deal over gay marriage since they're trying to appease the religious fanatics who vote for them, but who else truly gives a FUCK?

That's just a deliberate misrepresentation of the true issue. Segregation was just about skin color.

Homosexuality is not a race, it's a sexual behavior, not an inherent genetic trait, but a behavioral choice. And to many, an immoral and decadent one. And to non-religious people who oppose it, homosexuality is just a weird and gross choice.

As I quoted in a previous topic years ago, black civil rights leaders were actually offended that gays tried to wedge through their agenda comparing gay rights to the black civil rights movement.
And while you try to deny the issue, the chasm between gay rights and black civil rights was made clear in California's Proposition 8 vote in November 2008.
Where blacks who came to the polls to vote for Obama voted overwhelmingly against Proposition 8.



There have been plenty of other studies that say otherwise. That gay parents are more likely to promote their lifestyle, as well as promote other decadent behavior.



You've got it backwards.

The truth is, pushing gay marriage is just gay and liberal people forcing their views on conservative and Christian people, spreading misery by forcing their lifestyle, which in every credible study is maybe 2% of the public, and forcing their gay/liberal secularist views onto the overwhelming majority who oppose gay marriage.

Forcing those views on a society created on Christian principles, no less. Ironically, suppressing thre free practice of Christianity in a Christian culture.

Again: gay marriage is an attempt to give gays state-recognized minority protection. And would therefore make any Judao-Christian Bible verses condemning homosexuality a "hate-crime" punishable by large fines or even jail-time. So you want to give gays rights by taking rights away from Christians and other conservatives.

According CBS only forty-two percent of the public outright supports gay marriage. Most of the rest either support civil unions (but not "marriage") or oppose the whole idea outright.

So, apparently, about half the country gives a fuck and/or are "religious fanatics."

As I said before, I've got no problem with gay marriage when it's done by legislation or ballot initiatives. I just think the court rulings that impose it are flawed for the reasons I've set forth. I suspect a lot of republicans--and independents--feel the same way.

Finally, this begs the question: if some supporters of gay marriage are correct, and only a minority (primarily religious conservatives) oppose it, why are they so afraid to put it to a vote? Why are they forced to go to court and get legal opinions often full of tortured logic and bad precedents?

This thread makes me proud to not be part of either party.

I'm not actually a registered republican these days and haven't been in over a year.

In fact, I'm not currently registered to vote. I can't decide if I want to register a conservative or independent. I can't really see myself as a libertarian because I'm too in favor of law and order and the military.

I've even toyed with the idea of registering as democrat just so I can start a "Democrats against Obama," "Democrats for Palin" or "Democrats for the Tea Party" group.

Saying that gay marriage leads to incest and horse fucking makes you a right wing nut job. Learn to embrace who you really are.

I never said that.

I've said that poorly written court decisions often have unintended consequences and have speculated on what sort of consequences can occur and have occurred. Sometimes seriously, sometimes in a more tongue in cheek fashion.

But those are consequences of the courts' faulty reasoning, not gay marriage.

My point all along hasn't been 'anti gay marriage.' It's been the same as yours, to wit, "the will of the people" and "marriage is not a right."

You really need to stop arguing just to argue. It's making you look schizophrenic.

You decide to attack MEM or Ray so you argue what are basically conservative talking points.

Then you decide to argue with me so you claim the points I've made--points which confirm and illustrate what you wrote--are extemist and nutty.

You're basically contradicting yourself.

rex has a problem with you saying that being gay lead him to the incest and horse fucking, G-man. Being gay is not what lead him to the incest and horse fucking. Being rex lead him to the incest and horse fucking.

Someone could vote for or against something, and not feel strongly about it.

Saying that everyone who votes against a proposition "gives a fuck" is a stretch.

I honestly don't believe anyone other than the extreme right wing nutters give a flip about this, especially considering the sorry ass condition of this country right now.



Speaking only for myself, I'd have to say that they are concerned with the idea of the masses being swayed through bigotry or misinformation. You know, like the rhetoric that two gays getting married is an assualt on traditional marriages, America, insurance rates, and all that other nonsense...

That's a possibility in every election and every political issue. In fact, some people think that's how Obama got elected.

If you're going to argue that courts should make decisions because the masses are too easily "swayed" then why have elections at all? Why not let 'enlightened' judges make all the decisions?

This is an issue of a constitutional right though. Those rights should not depend on more people supporting it than not.