California supreme court rules on gay rights

[ironglow]

   Oh Yes; Tally;

    Someone should not have the "right" not to be revolted..Then you would agree with me that these "hate speech" laws should be thrown out..Yes ?

  You see, the 1st amendment is supposed to be in effect..but liberal judges have caused the negation of the 1st amendment in cases where causes "dear to their hearts",
   would be offended..

   I expect the 1st amendment would be free speech, except for danger(i.e.fire in a crowd) and lies...but the same judges allow lies..if it is a "public figure"..whaaat !

[tallyho]

   Oh Yes; Tally;

    Someone should not have the "right" not to be revolted..Then you would agree with me that these "hate speech" laws should be thrown out..Yes ?

  You see, the 1st amendment is supposed to be in effect..but liberal judges have caused the negation of the 1st amendment in cases where causes "dear to their hearts",
   would be offended..

   I expect the 1st amendment would be free speech, except for danger(i.e.fire in a crowd) and lies...but the same judges allow lies..if it is a "public figure"..whaaat !

You are right here ironglow - I absolutely do agree with you on this one. I will say again: no one has a right "not to be offended, revolted, annoyed etc..." And that being said, it is obvious that there is rampant hypocrisy in the system when judges rule a particular way because of something "dear to their hearts" rather than the Constitution or the law.

And perhaps you could (since you brought up the 1st amendment) have a look at the part about peaceful assembly. And when "they" don't do it peacefully, "they" are subject to the same laws of trespass, disturbing the peace, littering, or whatever, as anyone else.

The following statement of yours is completely hippocritical: " A few short years ago, the homosexuals ganged up and had a "march" on Washington DC, tied up streets and used, abused and littered the long mall between the Washington monument & the capital building..don't recall anyone suing to stop them from using public facilities  to voice their opinion." (my italics)

Who exactly did they gang up on? What exactly is the problem with a "march" on Washington DC?

The reason nobody (not even you it seems) sued to stop them from using public facilities to voice their opinion is because that very thing is protected by the first amendment!!! As much as you might hate it, the Constitution is for everyone, not just people you approve of! I notice nobody sued (not even you) when they used and abused... the long mall. What law applies? Is it a sex crime - abuse of a street? Just curious.

And while we are on the subject of how considerate Christians are:
"A) I have heard no cases of Christians breaking into homosexual's meetings or conclaves, but we saw them on the news..invading churches and disrupting services !
B) I have heard of no Christians infiltrating "gay" organizations and mocking their proceedings.but recently we saw footage of the gays disguising themselves to partake of the communion elements in a Catholic Church !" Just because you haven't heard of any doesn't mean they don't happen!

Didn't a bunch of so-called Christians disrupt a number of military funerals recently claiming that queers in the military were the reason the Iraq war was such a mess? Haven't "Christians" mocked, protested and disrupted many "gay" events. (Answer to both is yes by the way) If you have any interest in truth, just google anti-gay protests (there are 279,000 hits). Now not all of them are about Christians but there are plenty to offset your silliness about how pure and non-annoying all Christians are. If you can label all gays as disruptive or underhanded, why can't the same be done for all Christians?

Gays, Christians, feminists, gun-owners, vegetarians, hippies, veterans, etc. are all allowed by the First Amendment to peacefully demonstrate. Even though I do not completely share any groups' beliefs, nor support all their goals, I absolutely defend their right to express them. The point is that when one group, exercises a Constitutional right, expresses a position, demands redress, all groups have the same right. Whether your or I approve of the group is irrelevant. On the other hand, whether the rights described in the First, or any other Amendment, are actually supported by politicians or "activist judges" is certainly arguable.

I can even agree with you here. Though I do agree with your positions on the First and Second Amendments (and maybe more) I don't agree with everything you say.

You seem so attached to the "morality" and the "biblical rightness" of the issue, that you keep missing the most serious and insidious and constitutional part. The biggest problem with the California Supreme Court decision is that an "activist" court basically ignored a legitimate vote by the citizens of that state, who with a clear majority, chose to not approve same-sex marriages. And that, as I pointed out in a previous post, is the real danger in all of this.

I will not say the majority is always "right" about everything, but whether they are "right" or not, it is extremely dangerous for a liberty-based society to have courts reversing freely held votes.

[beemanbeme]

To me, a man that would beat his wife is committing one of the most degrading acts a married man can do.  That he would do this however, doesn't degrade my marriage. It really doesn't effect it at all.  Couples joined in "Holy Matrimony" play toss your keys in the hat and see who you draw and all sorts of extra curricular  sex games.  That doesn't degrade my marriage.  It's what you and your wife bring to the table that determines the value of YOUR marriage.  So whether it's a couple of "queers" hookin' up or a couple of straights, his fourth and her sixth, I fail to see how they can degrade your marriage.  Unless, of course, it was pretty shaky to begin with.  

[rex6666]

I can't go along with the "an adopted child is a wanted child"
who is this child's father, who is this child's mother  i think (do i have that right) it is
better to be fatherless/motherless than to explain the rest of my life who is who
I will go along with letting them do what they want to each other , but not to adopted kids, the kids
will always think their is some thing wrong because they are not like mom/mom or dad/dad.
or maybe by then it will be a choice and they can decide which they want to be.

[beemanbeme]

I'm not to up on all of the finer points of this but perhaps the court interpeted the laws as written.  If the citizens don't like the laws, they can vote to have their elected officials change the laws.  If it becomes a popularity contest, then the folks could vote one way one week and the the other way the next week. 
Or you know, like down in Florida (or Chicago), just keep having recounts until we get the results we want. 

[DalesCarpentry]

Didn't a bunch of so-called Christians disrupt a number of military funerals recently claiming that queers in the military were the reason the Iraq war was such a mess? Haven't "Christians" mocked, protested and disrupted many "gay" events. (Answer to both is yes by the way) If you have any interest in truth, just google anti-gay protests (there are 279,000 hits). Now not all of them are about Christians but there are plenty to offset your silliness about how pure and non-annoying all Christians are. If you can label all gays as disruptive or underhanded, why can't the same be done for all Christians?
These people are a radical Christian group that are scum. The name of their group is call. God hates fags. For them to show up at soldiers funeral's and protest is very offensive to me. Dale

[tallyho]

These people are a radical Christian group that are scum. The name of their group is call. God hates fags. For them to show up at soldiers funeral's and protest is very offensive to me. Dale

Dale, I realize the "God hates fags" (Westboro Baptist Church) group do not represent all Christians. I was attempting to make the point here that just because some "Christians" are disruptive, radical, noisy, even "scum" it is no more appropriate to label all Christians that way, than it is to label all gays that way..

And whether or not they are offensive to you (they are to me as well) their First Amendment rights to protest ought to be recognized. When they, or any group, actually contravenes a law, only then should they be penalized. Not penalized simply for exercising their/our rights.

Being offensive is not (yet) against the Constitution. And when/if it becomes so, you know who it will be that defines "offensive" - the people we trust least, politicians and bureaucrats!

[crustaceous]

Thank God the feds are taking action!
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1003/marriage.html

As well as some true christians:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/homorights.html

[zombiewolf]

Thank God the feds are taking action!
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1003/marriage.html

As well as some true christians:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/homorights.html

Hilarious dude!

[GRIMJIM]

Repeal the first amendment? You gotta be s*^&&ing me!

[GRIMJIM]

I thought he was serious at first.

[kevthebassman]

   Unless I have missed something, nobody here has suggested violence against those confused people..
  The problem comes when they want to call their "partnerships" MARRIAGE, the same as normal married people . If they really desire to be locked into a binding,
  legal contract of some type, let them call it a...Togetherness contract  perversion permit..whatever, but just not marriage, since some consider that to be a
  sacred thing. Yet the  gays seem to think that is not enough ! No; they want to enter into "Holy matrimony" (you have all heard the term) and put to themselves on
   par with real, normal people and in so doing,  degrade the true sanctity of marriage..which is insulting to those who have taken those vows.

Just what is wrong with them wanting to be given all the rights and privileges afforded to "normal" people?  Why, other than to spare you offense, should they be prevented from entering into a marriage like any other person in this country?  There is no good reason to treat them like second class citizens entitled only to a second class marriage simply because it offends your fragile concept of what a marriage should be.  The Constitution does not protect you or your marriage from insult.


 

An interesting sidelight:
   Check most of the great empires of the past..most did not die from external sources but from internal decay (immorality). The Assyrian empire, the Golden age of Greece,
   the decline & fall of Rome...in each case, one of the last things that found public and governmental approval...just before their fall.. was homosexualism...

The Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality, bisexuality, and had wild orgies long before their empires ever fell.  Over-extension and overspending (familiar situation, no?) along with the rise of Christianity had more to do with Rome's fall than any sexual practice. 

[ironglow]

  Kev;
  Check your reading comprehension..I said the downfall came shortly after they received public and governmental approval..some difference.

   Enjoy the lifestyle you are defending..

[powderman]

IRONGLOW. Good posts again.
kev. queers are 2 nd class. even lower. They don't deserve equal treatment the same as REAL married people. That would be condoning and supporting their deviate behaviour. They need to crawl back in their closet and lock the door. POWDERMAN.

[ironglow]

   
  Since you are so myopic about this moral question..are there any moral prohibitions in your life ? Anything you consider undignified ?

  For those that cannot differentiate between moral and immoral, normal and abnormal..don't expect your children to do so ...

[billy_56081]

"Didn't a bunch of so-called Christians disrupt a number of military funerals recently claiming that queers in the military were the reason the Iraq war was such a mess? Haven't "Christians" mocked, protested and disrupted many "gay" events. (Answer to both is yes by the way) If you have any interest in truth, just google anti-gay protests (there are 279,000 hits). Now not all of them are about Christians but there are plenty to offset your silliness about how pure and non-annoying all Christians are. If you can label all gays as disruptive or underhanded, why can't the same be done for all Christians?
These people are a radical Christian group that are scum. The name of their group is call. God hates fags. For them to show up at soldiers funeral's and protest is very offensive to me. Dale" Quote Dalescarpentry

  Well first of all these are a far out sect claiming to be " christian", main stream Christianity does not condone this behavior as the muslims do about terrorism. I am also waiting for the time that someone takes out a bunch of these animals, if I were on the jury I would not vote to convict no matter what the evedence.  

  

[DalesCarpentry]

The only place in my whole life I have been that gays made me uncomfortable was in Key West and south Miami. I lived in Key Largo for about a year and made a trip down to Key West with a buddy to do some fishing and snorkeling. I did see a few gay men walking down the street holding hands. This was back in the early 90'S. Key West is really another world from the rest of the country. The second place was South Miami. Me and the same buddy were drinking some beers and walking down the beach checking out the girls. Did I mention this was a bikini top optional beach. Well any ways we headed back up to the main drag to get a couple more beers. They had some kind of street party going on and had many blocks, blocked off. So all of the bars had a bar set up on the sidewalk. So we walk up to the first bar we come across and I say give us a couple Buds. This bartender is what I thought was a woman about 6'2". I really did not think much about it. I just thought she was a real tall woman. Besides I had a real good buzz from all the beer we have already drank. While we were standing there waiting for our beers me and my buddy were looking around. There were men kissing and women holding hands and kissing also. This was pretty much everywhere. Then I saw a sign something about a gay and lesbian festival. I turned to my buddy and said out loud ( IT WAS PRETTY NOISY ) They are fags they are all fags. Needless to say since I had been drinking I was pretty loud about it. There must have been 50 people that stopped what they were doing and looked at us. Needless to say we both realized what we walked into and did not belong there and after what I said they knew we did not belong there. We actually ran down to the beach because I did offend this group of people. I really though we were going to get our asses kicked. Dale

[deltecs]

   Unless I have missed something, nobody here has suggested violence against those confused people..
  The problem comes when they want to call their "partnerships" MARRIAGE, the same as normal married people . If they really desire to be locked into a binding,
  legal contract of some type, let them call it a...Togetherness contract  perversion permit..whatever, but just not marriage, since some consider that to be a
  sacred thing. Yet the  gays seem to think that is not enough ! No; they want to enter into "Holy matrimony" (you have all heard the term) and put to themselves on
   par with real, normal people and in so doing,  degrade the true sanctity of marriage..which is insulting to those who have taken those vows.

Just what is wrong with them wanting to be given all the rights and privileges afforded to "normal" people?  Why, other than to spare you offense, should they be prevented from entering into a marriage like any other person in this country?  There is no good reason to treat them like second class citizens entitled only to a second class marriage simply because it offends your fragile concept of what a marriage should be.  The Constitution does not protect you or your marriage from insult.


 

An interesting sidelight:
   Check most of the great empires of the past..most did not die from external sources but from internal decay (immorality). The Assyrian empire, the Golden age of Greece,
   the decline & fall of Rome...in each case, one of the last things that found public and governmental approval...just before their fall.. was homosexualism...

The Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality, bisexuality, and had wild orgies long before their empires ever fell.  Over-extension and overspending (familiar situation, no?) along with the rise of Christianity had more to do with Rome's fall than any sexual practice. 

Just what rights and priveleges are accorded normal people that gays do not have.  One.  The idea of marriage.  Marriage was designed for both heterosexuals to enjoy the right of parenthood with their offspring.  If gays can progenate on their own without outside assistance, then I say go ahead and permit marriages.  If they cannot, then no they do not get the same privelege of raising their own children.  That's a choice they have, and I don't need anyone to tell me the physiological and psychological differences of gays.    

[beemanbeme]

Uh oh, the zealots are starting to repeat themselves. And their "arguments" were pretty spurious the first time around.  Powderman, who are you to decide that "queers" are 2nd class?  2nd class to whom?  You? ROFLMAO!!
Earlier you suggested that you had the inside track on "family values" and "morality".  Why don't you explain to us what your brand of "family values" and "morality" consists of?  You come acrost as having a lot of hate and bias. Raw prejudice,as it were.  Is hating godless, sub-human mooslums and godless, subhuman homosexuals what you call family values? Is that what you pass on to your kids as morality?  
Actually, I'll be away fishing for the next week, but I'm sure some of the others would like to hear how you reconcile the hatred your espouse with the love the Bible teaches.  

[kevthebassman]

  Kev;
  Check your reading comprehension..I said the downfall came shortly after they received public and governmental approval..some difference.

   Enjoy the lifestyle you are defending..

Nero, who ruled from 37 to 68 AD, actually married a man.  The Roman Empire somehow managed to survive a few hundred years after this.

Look up Pederasty in ancient Greece.

IRONGLOW. Good posts again.
kev. queers are 2 nd class. even lower. They don't deserve equal treatment the same as REAL married people. That would be condoning and supporting their deviate behaviour. They need to crawl back in their closet and lock the door. POWDERMAN.

You sound just like those Godless Mooslims you despise so much.  If it doesn't fit into your mold of what is right, it sure as hell must be driven out of existence. 

Whether you like it or not, powderman, homosexuals have just as many rights under the Constitution as you do.  They intend to claim them, and I believe they are well within their rights to do so.  I believe that the courts will continue to find that to be the case.

[billy_56081]

Well pro gay people here answer me this.   If homosexuality is genetic how did it get passed on? Being gays cannot procreate in a gay relationship, this genetic mutation would have died out a long time ago. Hence my belief that it is a perversion, not something that is genetic.

[DalesCarpentry]

The only place in my whole life I have been that gays made me uncomfortable was in Key West and south Miami. I lived in Key Largo for about a year and made a trip down to Key West with a buddy to do some fishing and snorkeling. I did see a few gay men walking down the street holding hands. This was back in the early 90'S. Key West is really another world from the rest of the country. The second place was South Miami. Me and the same buddy were drinking some beers and walking down the beach checking out the girls. Did I mention this was a bikini top optional beach. Well any ways we headed back up to the main drag to get a couple more beers. They had some kind of street party going on and had many blocks, blocked off. So all of the bars had a bar set up on the sidewalk. So we walk up to the first bar we come across and I say give us a couple Buds. This bartender is what I thought was a woman about 6'2". I really did not think much about it. I just thought she was a real tall woman. Besides I had a real good buzz from all the beer we have already drank. While we were standing there waiting for our beers me and my buddy were looking around. There were men kissing and women holding hands and kissing also. This was pretty much everywhere. Then I saw a sign something about a gay and lesbian festival. I turned to my buddy and said out loud ( IT WAS PRETTY NOISY ) They are fags they are all fags. Needless to say since I had been drinking I was pretty loud about it. There must have been 50 people that stopped what they were doing and looked at us. Needless to say we both realized what we walked into and did not belong there and after what I said they knew we did not belong there. We actually ran down to the beach because I did offend this group of people. I really though we were going to get our asses kicked. Dale

Anyways here is the second part of this post. I got caught in my story and lost my point. There are a lot of things that offend me when I walk down the streets of America. If I see a pretty white girl with a black man that bothers me. I feel you should keep within your race. When I walk down the street and see these kids with their pants almost to their knees that bothers me. There was one time this kid come in a store I was in and he had his hat backwards. His pants were literally down to his knees and he had boxer shorts on. He also had all kind of piercings all over his face. I took one look at this kid and bursted out laughing at him, in front of him. I said GIVE ME A BREAK DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I could not stop laughing at him. He walked away and I never saw him again. These kids that have every part of their body pierced and die their hair black. They bother me to. The point I am trying to make is not everyone lives like us and we do need to accept them for the simple fact we are all Americans. We are all in this together. Dale

[deltecs]

  Kev;
  Check your reading comprehension..I said the downfall came shortly after they received public and governmental approval..some difference.

   Enjoy the lifestyle you are defending..

(censored word) ironglow.  Nero, who ruled from 37 to 68 AD, actually married a man.  The Roman Empire somehow managed to survive a few hundred years after this.

Look up Pederasty in ancient Greece.

IRONGLOW. Good posts again.
kev. queers are 2 nd class. even lower. They don't deserve equal treatment the same as REAL married people. That would be condoning and supporting their deviate behaviour. They need to crawl back in their closet and lock the door. POWDERMAN.

You sound just like those Godless Mooslims you despise so much.  If it doesn't fit into your mold of what is right, it sure as hell must be driven out of existence. 

Whether you like it or not, powderman, homosexuals have just as many rights under the Constitution as you do.  They intend to claim them, and I believe they are well within their rights to do so.  I believe that the courts will continue to find that to be the case.

There is no reference to marriage rights in the Constitution, either heterosexual or homosexual.  According to the 10th Amendment then, any rights not granted to the Constitution is reserved to the states or people respectively.  So, marriage is a states right and currently 27 states has enacted laws that determine a marriage to be between a man and woman.  Gays want to overturn the enacted legislation to include them under federal law and none exists, not even under the 14th Amendment.  California's State Constitution is different than other States and may permit this action in that State and that State alone.  Other States may also permit gay marriages under their Constitution, but many other States do not according to theirs'.  

[dukkillr]

Well pro gay people here answer me this.   If homosexuality is genetic how did it get passed on? Being gays cannot procreate in a gay relationship, this genetic mutation would have died out a long time ago. Hence my belief that it is a perversion, not something that is genetic.

So many thoughts:

1) Please understand that I'm not "pro-gay" but rather I'm pro-thinking.  I'm not pro-gay marriage but there are obvious answers here.
2) I'm surprised you believe in evolution.  So I guess maybe your answer could be, "God put them here 4000 years ago after hid the fake dinosaur bones."
3) I wear contacts.  I would never see a lion stalking me in the grass without correction.  Obviously if evolution was a 100% cure for undesirable traits I would have 20/20 vision.  Of course juvenile diabetes, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, cickle-cell anemia, etc wouldn't exist either. 
4) Larry Craig has kids.  According to a UCLA study 19 percent of currently open gays were previously MARRIED.  I was the best man in a wedding of a Devout Southern Baptist who had 2 kids in that marriage before divorcing his wife, telling everyone he was gay, and moved in with a boyfriend.  None of us ever saw it coming, even in hindsight it's a surprise. 

[crustaceous]

Didn't nobody ever learn you about the Punnet's square? There are both dominant and recessive genes. Fag/Homo genes can skip hole generations. Should have stayed awake in seventh grade.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

Great discussion...  Homosexuality is evil because it says so in the Bible.  Hmmm...maybe we should now discuss slavery and what the Bible says about that?!!

Jim

[tallyho]

Pretty quickly those vehemently moralistic haters of queers start to sound a lot like the faithful believers in the "religion of peace" and followers of the Prophet (PBUH). You know who I mean, the ones who plan jihad in order to cleanse the world of all perverts, deviants and non-believers. Why not just join with the jihadists? There's an oft quoted Arabic saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Translated: The enemy (jihadists) of my enemy (queers/fags/gays) is my friend.

Ah, now I get it - you guys who hate queers so much see the jihadists as friends - that explains a lot.

Yet you usually say you hate those jihad guys almost as much as you despise queers - I must be missing something. Or have I just stumbled upon a secret connection between your fanatical hatred of queers, and that same hatred held by Islam's fanatical true believers?

You do seem to be quoting very similar scriptural references to support your position on immorality, queers, and other evils. And some of you even admit you want to change the Constitution so that will actually be more like sharia laws in certain Islamic countries.

Is that it? You guys really are the same, share the same beliefs, the same morality, and you are just saying you hate the jihadists in order to camouflage your connection with, and admiration for them? You really want the same kinds of moral and religious laws in this country as in theirs? Whew...!

But I think I get it now - sorry for blowing your cover.

[beemanbeme]

Interesting concept. Tallyho. Maybe we HAD better start looking under the bed at night. There won't be a terrorist under there, but there just might be a zealot hooking up that plastic to the hands of a clock. Now that the godless, sub-human poolice are keeping a closer eye on the family planning centers, they've got to practice their "family values" and "morality" somewhere? 

[Mikey]

I'm thinking that some folk may confuse the concepts of 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' here.  You may have to socially tolerate something if it becomes law, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it as a way of life for yourself.  If you disagree with something, then lead the other way by example. 

We may have to 'tolerate' gay marriage or the like by not discriminating against it in word or action - that is we cannot legally assault, harass or deny (in most cases) - but that doesn't mean we have to 'accept' the concept and its resultant actions into our homes or way of life. 

Nobody is forcing anyone to send out Christmas party invitations to the local gay and lesbian society or requiring anyone to hire a gay performer for a child's birthday party and I have not yet heard of any gay men forcing children or others to wear lipstick and short skirts. 

Our freedoms here allow us to think as we please and our First Amendment rights allow us to state our positions and beliefs.  These rights do not allow us to discriminate or take any physical action against those who disagree with us.  This is still a free country and as I mentioned previously, we may find some of these gay folk looking to us for advise on how to keep their freedoms. 

Does this mean that if we let a gay guy handle one of our guns he is gonna 'fag' it all up so it won't shoot straight?  Hardly!  Does this mean that if our children see a gay couple they are going to turn into cross dressers - I doubt it.  If this so concerns people that it will set bad examples for impressionable people, then lead by example to show a different perspective and I believe vehement hatred turns more people away that brings them to the fold.  Just another of my two cents worth philosophizin'.  Mikey.

 

[powderman]

MIKEY. By tolerating these perverts, we are accepting them as normal, thereby promoting this deviate behaviour. I've llearned a lot  here about some of you. This discussion is going on on 2 other boards. It's about 5050. This proves to me the moral decline  that  has taken America down the slippery slope. This was not an issue til after 1963 when madylyn ohare somehow got federal judges to kick God out iof America. The ten commandment are no longer a part of our schools, or judicial system. The result is the immorality and behaviour we have today. I'm disappointed in some of you, not at others. I don't hate queers, I hate what they do and having their immoral, deviate lifestyle shoved in my face daily and folks trying to force the world to accept them as normal. Gotta go to work. POWDERMAN.