The Decision in Perry v Schwarzennegger is for the Plaintiffs

[A-1 (imported)]

Christians?

Christ never married, Never had children, and he took 12 boyfriends with him everywhere he went.

How can they say that they follow Christ, if they are married with children and without 12 boyfriends?

That is the Christ of the Big black book of lies know as the Bible?

All any preacher I ever met wanted was control of my life and my money.

Did God create man or did man create God?

If Man created God to explain his environment we have no worries. It's all a lie!

3 things.

#1 gareth, unconditioning a conditioned response may not be efficient or even possible in the case of human sexuality. In experiments reality may or may not be expressed, although science can be observed, also, and this is just as valid. I take a postModern outlook on this phenomenon. We may never know for sure...

However, it is impossible to get a heterosexual to admit to ever having a Gay encounter in today's society because to do so is to be immediately labeled as GAY, or a "closet Gay" or repressed or some other such nonsense, even though the number of Gay encounters may be only 2 or 3 while the number of heterosexual encounters has been lost track of after the 13th regular female in a long line of serial monogamy.

Once labeled as Gay, it is almost impossible to form a meaningful relationship with a woman. Inadvertently, by trying to keep people from being Gay, society FORCES them into a sexual outlet and they stay there.

My wife once said of a young boy who came to a grandson's birthday party that he was Gay. I asked her how she knew. She said "THEY" told her. This was despite the fact that two of the finest bikini-clad young ladies that I ever laid eyes upon came to the pool party to be with HIM! My wife said don't you know?, Gay boys always hang out with girls... my mind flashed back to High School when I used to go to lunch with my wife and her two best friends.

#2 Jema is ABSOLUTELY correct, it makes no difference, nature or nurture, in the end facing facts is a private matter, and it is ENTIRELY up to the participants, if the President of the United States can say that he has no taste for broccoli, then a GAY man has a right to say that he has no taste for PUSSY. But probably he should at least taste it once. I don't think that "HW" was ever 'forced' to eat his vegetables as a child.

#3 George, have YOU read the DaVinci Code? How do YOU KNOW Christ never had any? Do you think that Tom Hanks should have brought up the song "PUT A RING IN IT" (http://www.celebitchy.com/category/tom_hanks/) in his 49 mil movie "Angels and Demons"? What DO you think he means by that one?

[moi621 (imported)]

Today's Los Angeles Times discusses how "The Arnold" and Attorney General & Dem candidate for Governor, Jerry Brown do not wish to represent "the people" as voted in favor of Prop. 8.

Personally, I believe Prop. 8, is unconstitutional.

But, the point is that the Governor and Attorney General of Califo-nia owe it to the people to defend, "The Law" without personal bias.

It reminds me of the recalled Califo-nia State Supreme Court Chief Justice, Rose Bird when she expressed her bias against the death penalty recently approved by Califo-nia voters.

Don't Arnold, Jerry and previously Rose have a duty to the people's opinion?

<sigh> :-\

Moi

Vote Green,

Dem or Repub does not matter in 2010 !

From Obamacrates to Tea Party politics,

we the people get screwed.

[A-1 (imported)]

Today's Los Angeles Times discusses how "The Arnold" and Attorney General & Dem candidate for Governor, Jerry Brown do not wish to represent "the people" as voted in favor of Prop. 8.

Personally, I believe Prop. 8, is unconstitutional.

But, the point is that the Governor and Attorney General of Califo-nia owe it to the people to defend, "The Law" without personal bias.

It reminds me of the recalled Califo-nia State Supreme Court Chief Justice, Rose Bird when she expressed her bias against the death penalty recently approved by Califo-nia voters.

Don't Arnold, Jerry and previously Rose have a duty to the people's opinion?

<sigh> :-\

Moi

Vote Green,

Dem or Repub does not matter in 2010 !

From Obamacrates to Tea Party politics,

we the people get screwed.

O.K.,

Did the Nazis 'owe' it to the citizens of Germany to 'enforce' the laws of Germany without bias? Did the opinion of the 'PEOPLE' override the right of the Jew to work, own property and live in Germany?

Didn't the NAZIS have a 'duty' to place the Jew in a Concentration Camp because the majority of Germans did not like them?

Should the Jew have had basic rights in Germany?

[jemagirl (imported)]

But, the point is that the Governor and Attorney General of Califo-nia owe it to the people to defend, "The Law" without personal bias.

So my question to you is this...

If the people who want the ban in place failed to articulate a compelling governmental interest to keep the ban in place, is it really up to the Governor and State Attorney General of California to find one?

[moi621 (imported)]

So my question to you is this...

If the people who want the ban in place failed to articulate a compelling governmental interest to keep the ban in place, is it really up to the Governor and State Attorney General of California to find one?

Ignoring A-1 logic.

Proposition 8 and its' wording as an initiative, had to pass through

The State Attorney General's office before being placed on the ballot.

The article I mentioned indicated a lack of interest on the part of Arnold and Jerry. It was this point that impressed me and I remembered the days of the recall of Califo-nia Chief Justice, Rose Bird.

The Oath of Office requires upholding the law.

So how can Arnold, Jerry and previously Rose not be held accountable

for violation of the Oath of Office? Well Rose was by recall.

Senator Sam Ervin of the Watergate hearings considered violation of the oath of office an impeachable offense.

Prop 8 seems unconstitutional to me. But, the Gov and Attorney General owe it us to put up a good fight and go down swinging, per their oath.

Moi

Recycle all of them, Vote Green 2010

[jemagirl (imported)]

Ignoring A-1 logic.

The Oath of Office requires upholding the law.

So how can Arnold, Jerry and previously Rose not be held accountable

for violation of the Oath of Office?

Simple... Prop 8 is no longer law. It was struck down.

Prop 8 seems unconstitutional to me. But, the Gov and Attorney General owe it us to put up a good fight and go down swinging, per their oath.

They already have fulfilled their oath of office when they defended Prop 8 against the plaintiffs. They lost.

Where in the oath of office does it say they can't accept the judgement of the court?

Where in the oath of office does it say they must appeal the decision all the way to the SCOTUS?

And exactly what people do they owe it to anyway? Prop 8 didn't win by a landslide and it probably wouldn't pass if it were on the ballot today. Maybe they owe it to the people to show some good judgement and not waste money and resources pursuing a case with little merit.

[gareth19 (imported)]

#3 George, have YOU read the DaVinci Code?

The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and badly written fiction at that; it is a bunch of lies. Maybe in a "postmodern world" Fox News is the same as PBS Frontline or HBO's "Roma" is the same as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or The 300 ranks up there with Thucydides, but in the sane world bullshit doesn't compete authoritative sources.

The Jesus of the Bible and of his follows (and of his enemies) is celibate. If like every other horny Roman boy he wanted a good lay, why were the Roman authorities (not the Christians!) so damn worried about the Christians' refusal to procreate. Here we must apply Morrison's Law. "Any explanation that makes nonsense of what follows is false." The Gnostic "horny Jesus" hypothesis makes the responses by Roman authorities nonsensical; therefore, the Gnostics are (once again) completely wrong.

[Dave (imported)]

And none of this stuff -- Pavlov or Da Vinci Code or why we are gay -- pertains to the decision in Perry v Schwarzenegger.

As for upholding the oath of office, remember, there are three branches of government - Legislative, Executive and Judicial - and when the Judiciary (represented by the Supreme Court) rules that a law is unconstitutional, the appropriate response by the Executive branch is to accept the ruling and follow it. It is not appropriate for an Executive branch to ignore the court's ruling under appeal.

[Riverwind (imported)]

The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and badly written fiction at that; it is a bunch of lies. Maybe in a "postmodern world" Fox News is the same as PBS Frontline or HBO's "Roma" is the same as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or The 300 ranks up there with Thucydides, but in the sane world bullshit doesn't compete authoritative sources.

The Jesus of the Bible and of his follows (and of his enemies) is celibate. If like every other horny Roman boy he wanted a good lay, why were the Roman authorities (not the Christians!) so damn worried about the Christians' refusal to procreate. Here we must apply Morrison's Law. "Any explanation that makes nonsense of what follows is false." The Gnostic "horny Jesus" hypothesis makes the responses by Roman authorities nonsensical; therefore, the Gnostics are (once again) completely wrong.

That's a bold statement, are you sure, show your work and just how is fiction a bunch of lies? That just does not make any sense, Non fiction is based on truth or should be, fiction is a story and can be told anyway the author wants to tell it, its not based on lies, but his/her truth as a story teller.

So produce works other then the Bible to prove you point. In the mean time would you also explain the missing 12 or so years between the time he becomes an adult and when he starts his ministry because its a big blank page. The point is that there is a lot of stuff missing and the Bible was written by men for men to be read by men and all of them had little or nothing to say about women or there rolls in the history of that day. But if you do read between the lines and do a little investigation you might come up with a different solution than what you have posted above.

Keep in mind, I am a pagan.

River

[A-1 (imported)]

The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and badly written fiction at that; it is a bunch of lies. Maybe in a "postmodern world" Fox News is the same as PBS Frontline or HBO's "Roma" is the same as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or The 300 ranks up there with Thucydides, but in the sane world bullshit doesn't compete authoritative sources.

The Jesus of the Bible and of his follows (and of his enemies) is celibate. If like every other horny Roman boy he wanted a good lay, why were the Roman authorities (not the Christians!) so damn worried about the Christians' refusal to procreate. Here we must apply Morrison's Law. "Any explanation that makes nonsense of what follows is false." The Gnostic "horny Jesus" hypothesis makes the responses by Roman authorities nonsensical; therefore, the Gnostics are (once again) completely wrong.

Authoritative sources?

Do you mean like the Council of Nicea (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/ar ... /nicea.htm)? Or are you talking about a specific religion or religious viewpoint? What happened at the council of Nicea and how did it affect the Bible (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html)? Were there favorable writings about Jesus Christ that were BANNED from the Bible? (http://www.thelostbooks.com/)

Are you going to revisit the persecution and elimination of the GNOSTIC religion (http://gnostica.tripod.com/) that arose in the time after Christ's death and before the Council of Nicea? Do you actually KNOW what Gnosticism was all about? (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/gnostici.htm)

gareth, "Occam's Razor" (http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/occam.html) is a better defense of your position than Morrison's Law. (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-ast ... nd-answers)

Neverthless it has been said of Postmodernism AND Postmodernists that,

"...there are a few sensibilities emerging that hint at some directions in postmodern thinking. First, there is a suspicion of anyone who has all of the answers, wants to make life into a formula, or attempts to press all things into systems and dogmas. Rather, there is an openness to divergent ideas, philosophies, and approaches, and a willingness to live with paradox and proceed with contradictions unresolved..."

SO there IS no shame in being a POSTMODERNIST, nor is there a significant problem in Postmodern methods, per se. Having a science background has made me a questioner, and like the typical Arkansas hick, I HAVE TO BE SHOWN to accept. As River says, show me the evidence...

However, as you point out it is easy to mold Postmodern methods into a justification for Dogma that is much, much, worse than what is out there. Most people today are Postmodern in their outlook. (Yes, even YOU!) In fact, to be a Christian, you must reject some of the foundations of Modernism. Think about that for a bit!

Ask yourself, what is the essence of Christ's divinity. Was it physical OR was it spiritual?

The rejection of things PHYSICAL is a powerful concept. How might that have been used for control? How did Jim Jones use it? How did David Koresh use it? How have religious leaders used the concept of celibacy to control their followers while ignoring it for themselves?

Would it have worked if Jesus Christ was not celibate?

I have NEVER allowed any religion to craw into bed between me and my wife. Whether Jesus Christ was actually celibate is of no consequence in this case, or what one believes, it is the IDEA and the application of that idea by manipulators that matters.

Occam's Razor, my friend....Occam's Razor...