Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Flanders!
Trad climber
June Lake, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
|
Pate, you can felch all you want, just do it behind closed doors, and please don't ask the rest of
society who still has a measure of morality
to accept your sickness !
Doug
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
|
I am troubled by the legal turn of events.
I'd generally say that I am a supporter of gay marriage--why shouldn't they suffer as much as the rest of us?
However, marriage is legally regulated by the States, including defined by the States. The people of the State of California have voted to retain the definition that has stood for a long time--it is not a radical definition.
One judge, who has a clear conflict of interest and is pursuing his own agenda, has made a clever ruling, in such a way as it can probably not be appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, where it would probably be reversed, as he knows.
In essence, one person has taken away the people of California's right to decide this issue, as such, strikes me as a reduction in democracy.
So to be clear, I don't support Prop 8, but I also don't support the legal actions that have been taken since.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 06:23pm PT
|
Being born gay and wanting same sex marriage: not evil.
Wanting to tell gays they can't have the same rights as heteros even though it causes you no harm: evil.
|
|
Nohea
Trad climber
Sunny Aiea,Hi
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:25pm PT
|
Wherever there is trouble, my study of history has led me to believe that the government rests at the genesis. So I ask….why do we look to the government at all when it comes to social issues such as marriage. How about you go to your church or marriage guru and I go to mine and I call it whatever I want and you can too!
Get the government out of our lives!
When I hear someone say Your Gay! I say your right, I am very gay, I live a gay life and its my wife who sees how gay I am and says “oh my gay man I love you so much.”
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:15pm PT
|
Somebody had to maybe wait too long at the DMV for their Drivers License?
We don't need no stinkin "government" to protect our "rights".
We can do that all by ourselves, me and Mr. Smith and Wesson.
Send my mail to:
Ted Kaczynski
Idaho, US.
|
|
Nohea
Trad climber
Sunny Aiea,Hi
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:23pm PT
|
go back on the nipple norty sorry for bothering you.
somehow the bold climbers of this board has cannot imagine what freedom is and are blind, unable to look back at what freedom was. Sad, yet I reaffirm my belief in the individual.
My comment on the post below
Wow, you really have no clue, lemme guess...public school?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
|
Yeah!
We TRUE Patriots know what real FREEDOM is.
The rest of Amerika is a bunch of gay loving, commie socialists, or something.
This is a REAL American!
MY kind of people.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2010 - 08:12pm PT
|
" In essence, one person has taken away the people of California's right to decide this issue, as such, strikes me as a reduction in democracy."
So why have a Constitution at all? If you want tyranny of the majority, there is no place for Constitutional rights.
Here is the Oath of Office required to be taken by all public employees in California, from the Governor on down. Why is there is so much emphasis on the Constitution?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20
SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of
__ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2010 - 10:29pm PT
|
Same Sex Weddings will NOT Start Wednesday, Appeals Court Rules.
(Very troubling that all three members of the Appeals Court are presumably
married heterosexual Christians.)
This has already PREJUDICED their ultimate decision, just like we all knew
that the GAY Judge would rule in favor of same sex weddings.
(NOT)
08/16
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumped a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.
Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.
"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books."
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2010 - 11:59pm PT
|
You betcha!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:25am PT
|
So the liberal Maverick family of Texas was annoyed when John McCain puffed himself up as a maverick, and now the genuine tea-baggers of New England are annoyed that a bunch of poseurs are trying to appropriate their honourable history. This is getting good.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:56am PT
|
This means that a state cannot pass a law that prohibits one religion's definition of the word "marriage" to be forced upon those who do not subscribe to that religion.
I thought the Constitution stated that the Congress cannot make a law preventing or promoting a religion's free expression?
Gay marriage is a civil right that had been granted by the law.
Is it really? Isn't this the crux?
Unfortunately, while I disagree with gay marriage, it may be interpreted to be Constitutional in a mistaken way...And not one eveyone keeps yapping about.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:01am PT
|
OMG, Wes!!!!!!
yes, i am. WOw!!!!! can you be more reactionary!!11!!!!!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:11am PT
|
One day, Wes, we'll all hold hands when we reach your level of enlightenment. Won't that be so ghey and grand??? I can't wait, man. I get to hold Wes' hand....
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:58am PT
|
Gay marriage is a civil right that had been granted by the law.
Please refresh my memory of when that law was passed?
I both understand and support the heirarchical process of judicial review. However, there seems to be a rather clever attempt to circumvent that power....normally, such a decision by a judge would affect only the juristiction involved...in this case, California. However, it could be appealed. If upheld on appeal to the US Supreme Court, it become the law of the United States, applicable everywhere.
In this situation, it appears that they've found a way to avoid that judicial review, by way of the technicality of the Gov and Atty Gen not appealing, and no else may have standing to do so.
So one person, who has a conflict, will have the power to overturn the vote of the people of California, with no appeal. That is the power of a king, not a judge.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:59am PT
|
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. 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.
bluering, I'm sure you are passed out drunk by now, but have you by any chance read the Constitution yet? Or at the very least, the 14th Amendment? Or even the above paragraph describing Section 1, which is most directly relevant to the legal decisions made thusfar regarding Prop 8?
In it, you'll note nothing at all regarding religion, gender, or sexual orientation. In fact, it is remarkably and elegantly simple in concept:
Any citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law.
Any citizen.
All laws.
That includes marriage, bluering, which has very strong legal underpinnings to it.
Still don't get it, do ya?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:01am PT
|
Wes, is wasn't voted against for religious reasons. And you fail to see where there is a somewhat valid point in the 14th to allow it.
Hint: privilege....
EDIT: Apogee, i fail to concur. See my above post and YOU re-read it.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:06am PT
|
Which one, blue? I'm not gonna go wading through your stuff and guess which one you are currently referring to.
Edit: BTW, my post was in error- the pertinent clause is within Section 1. Sorry. It's late.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:17am PT
|
Geez, Ap, you keep telling me to read the f*#king thing....
It's the part that basically says you cannot deny State privileges to certain people. It was intended to apply to black slaves, but could be used in this case, I believe, to apply to gay marriage.
The equal protection 'under the law' part is BS IMO. There is no law about gays getting married. It's always been (in the time of the law) a marriage of opposite sexes. Doesn't apply.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:12am PT
|
Rj wrote
I can easily imagine a "bisexual" person in a divorce complaining that his straight partner won't provide the sexual services that his other partners provided, and that is partial grounds for the divorce. It is inevitable. Sexual practices and habits are often used in this way by ordinary couples undergoing divorce now.
Hey Rox, we're californicators! We just tell the court we have irreconcilable differences for a no-fault divorce.
From the net
"A California divorce is officially called a dissolution of marriage. Under California divorce law, the court declares the matrimonial contract broken. Historically, divorces could only be granted within specific parameters such as adultery and mental cruelty. However since the application of statute no. 2310 in 1970, those limitations have been removed.
Today, a divorce in California is granted on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences." Irreconcilable differences are any grounds that the court determines to be substantial reasons for the marriage not to continue. California was also the first state to implement the concept of a "no-fault divorce." Under this California divorce law, if a married person wishes to divorce, he/she can do so, even if the other person disagrees"
Why make people stay married who don't want to be?
"Without anal sex and sodomy, there is NO homosexual community, by definition."
While us Men are animals, marriage can take the sex out of any community. Remember Lesbians are Gay too and I can imagine some sexless marriages there too. I bet Dick Cheney thinks he is hetero-sexual even though it could give him another heart attack if he tried to do something about it.
Let's face it. The bottom line is that people are taking offense at Gay marriage for religious reasons. Having a state institutinon based on religion is unconstitutional and never should have got mixed up with it in the first place. The state should legislate the civil end of unions for everyone. Religions can marry who they believe should be allowed to get married on the religious end. And then everyone can leave the rear end of the question for behind closed doors
Anal Sex is THE primary transmission mode for HIV, and HIV is a death sentence.
Not between faithful married partners.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!