California backs gay marriage ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068019.stm

What makes this more fascinating now aside from the rabble from both sides of the gay marriage debate is the constitutional impact it will have. Being common law based precedents are often used and this sets a huge precedent. This leaves the question of if states that have already legalized gay marriage, if it goes to a public vote post fact would that mean it'd be banned again. On one hand it's denying the rights to a group of people, on the other hand it's upholding the most sacred right of entire state system in that the constitution is sovereign to the people and they have the right to amend it.

 

Separation of Marriage and State. Why does the state have any right over marriage anyway?

 

It's all ready been to public vote. The people elected their representatives.

 

This is yet another example of how referendums and direct democracy impact the daily lives of people who have rights taken from them.

 

Shame on the court indeed.

 

The way i understand it,

a Common Law Marriage is effected when two people call each other spouses,

while residing together for at least 7 years.

So, as usual, no matter what "the people" want,

there is a way around THAT.

Marriage is defined by God in the Bible.

Civil Union, however, is defined by man.

It sort of boils down to a question of changing the definition of a word that has been in use for throusands and thousands of years.

i mean, what? With the NWO, we need a new dictionary? Will certain words be outlawed? Their meanings changed to subtly reflect the exact OPPOSITE of what they originally meant?

And, i guess, most importantly:

Are these the changes you had in mind when you backed/voted for Obama?

Words will now have different meanings;

our Constitution is up for interpretation, and, hey! You don't have to even make any SENSE with your argruments ~ just PRESENT them, and stall everything out until it becomes a non-issue;

our sense of morals, of what is basically right and wrong,

will no longer be viewed through a screen of open-mindedness and empathy for the folks that had to actually live through whatever situation?

Pfft! Good luck with that.

Ari? You have a mug-shot of Bush, wanted for war crimes. What about Obama's War Crimes? (NO, not really ~ i feel certain you have some sort of excuse for him at hand...)

 

Was it just a "mistake?"

You know, one of those Vote-Yes-If-You-Mean-No type of things,

where everyone gets all confused?

( i HATE that ~ it is chicanery at it's worst!)

 

Where?

I agree.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5526403&postcount=10

 

Et tu, O-tus??? :rofl:

It's more of a continuing theme, throughout the Bible, as a prelude to His Church (Christians) joining Him in a marriage,

but it is also described in several chapters,

as is God's righteous anger against homosexuality.

To really understand ^ that ^ concept, you have to understand that Christians believe that God created each and every one of us, all humans,

much like a pottery artist throwing different types of containers.

Some are toilets...

some are bathtubs;

some are sinks;

some are highly decorated and very attractive;

some are just plain, red clay;

but ALL of them were created (made) for a certain purpose.

Sure, you can wash your face in the toilet, if you want,

but you aren't using it as it was intended to be used by the person that made it.

Male and female were made to interact, sexually, in order to continue the species. There are other organisms which can reproduce by just dividing themselves in half! Still others require multiple impregnations, in order to produce the optimum litter.

And ALL of it is just awesome to contemplate. <sigh>

 

I meant the word. I looked into it and the actual word is not that old.
Certainly not 2000 years.
I can appreciate the bible carrying on about the union of man and women etc. I meant the word "marriage".
Religion didn't invent the concept of "marriage" did it?

My point in the other thread was it is just a word. GET OVER IT (Both sides.)

"But activists say such partnerships are not equivalent to marriage"

WELL MAKE IT THE SAME AND MOVE ON.

Oh, I know that.

I don't believe anything in the bible.

Perhaps for you. I'm not planning on believeing the bible...

 

So god is a polygamist ?

 

Odon,

please believe me when i tell you that i never thought i would, either.

For a LOT of reasons.

Shit happens.

Things change.

All of a sudden, the pic gets a little clearer,

the truth gets a little closer,

and we get a little smaller.

 

Good for you. It isn't for me though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "truth" of the bible.
I've only got another 50-60 years on the planet.

 

Hey, i'm down with that ~

i think i've got about 45 more...

 

Ok. I'm erm, washing my hair.

 

"but you aren't using it as it was intended to be used by the person that made it."

Once its mine, a bathtub maker has no say in whether I plant flowers in my bathtub or wash my dog in it.

Assuming that I have a creator AND assuming that that creator had a plan for what they wanted me to be or do, that doesn't prevent me from ignoring my creators wishes and doing what I want for my life. (Or did the creator intend me to not use the built-in free will.)

What is even more absurd than restricting me to the creators wishes is restricting me to what someone else thinks the creator wanted me to do.

If the creator is opposed to two people loving each other, just because they are the same gender, then I say that creator is opposed to love and therefore my enemy.

(Just 'cause they're the creator, don't mean that they're right.)

 

The bible lets me beat my slaves, as long as they don't die. Which is cool.

 

If it is truly the will of the people then so be it.
Until then Gay rights activists need to spread their word and work harder to gain more support in future referendums.

 

I could argue here it was also the will of the people in 1954 in Brown vs Board of Ed to keep them darkies out of our schools

California is often the epitome of populism gone wrong

 

As a Native Californian I am saddened by this ruling for several reasons. The most important being lost revenues to the state. But the passage of prop. 8 made it more or less a fate acompli.

I am sure another proposition will be listed on another special ballot sometime soon. But I really wish the issue would be resolved nationally. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. I think marriage should simply be a religious term and all legal benefits should be stripped from it, thereby allowing every religion to set their own terms. Tax breaks and legal standing should be based solely on legal status.

I find it sad in a way that heterosexuals feel threatened by gays wishing to commit to each other. With the divorce rate what it is and the number of children born outside of a marriage or formal committment, marriage really isn't that much of an institution anymore.