gareth19 (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:52 pm Given the idea that gay is just a phase, it is conceivable that a state statute mandating that a male cannot marry another male until he reaches 65 (in case he has a long time finding his true sexuality) might pass muster.

Gay is just a phase is not a given; I haven't seen that proposed anywhere; so that destroys your argument.

I can equally propose that heterosexuality is just a phase. Given that and your premise, we should outlaw marriage or make marriage permissible only to those over the age of 65, straight or gay.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:25 pm Gay is just a phase is not a given; I haven't seen that proposed anywhere; so that destroys your argument.

I can equally propose that heterosexuality is just a phase. Given that and your premise, we should outlaw marriage or make marriage permissible only to those over the age of 65, straight or gay.

YES!

...maybe Roman Polanski and Michael Jackson SHOULD have been allowed to marry their LOVES...

...so what if they had not reached PUBERTY yet...

...you just HAVE to have a virgin...

...Polygamy made a PIG_OF_ME...



...one should NEVER take on more than one can EAT!

Judge Walker (a Republican appointed by Reagan) was very clear that the prop 8 supporters could not demonstrate how gay marriage had a negative impact on society or straight marriages. He was rather pointed in his remarks and suggested that the only motivation of the prop 8 supporters was the animus they felt toward homosexuals. Bravo to him!

Mac (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:33 pm Where in the United States Constitution is the power to define and regulate marriage given to the U.S. Government or denied to the states? It appears that any constitutional tests should be based on the respective state constitutions.

It doesn't, BUT... there is this thing called the 14th amendment, which explicitly lays out the principal that there are no separate classes under the law. Since Federal law supersedes State law, this means that States cannot create separate classes under the law. Example: Heterosexual marriage Vs Same sex marriage... the only thing that makes them different is the sex/gender of the spouses.... In essence as far as the law is concerned a marriage is a marriage.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:20 pm MUAH.... HA HA!

The GIRLY BOYS have BEATEN the GOVERNATOR...! OH, GOVERNATOR..., YOUR BALLS have BEEN kicked... OH! ...what a FEELING, huh? NOW, Hold your BALLS tightly and LIMP home to your aneorexic wifey. Well, that's what a REPUBLICAN gets for marrying into a DEMOCRATIC family...

...Long LIVE THE GIRLY BOYS!



shit...

:shakemitk

Oops! You stepped in it here A-1. Connan the Governator (Rep) just joined with Attorney General Jerry Brown (Dem) in filing with the courts to 'enact' Judge Walker's decision, i.e. to allow gay marriages to go forward with immediate effect.

Methinks what Gareth19 meant by 'given the idea that homosexuality is just a phase' is not that it IS just a phase, but what follows from that idea is that.......(the rest of his post).

sensenbender (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:26 pm Oops! You stepped in it here A-1. Connan the Governator (Rep) just joined with Attorney General Jerry Brown (Dem) in filing with the courts to 'enact' Judge Walker's decision, i.e. to allow gay marriages to go forward with immediate effect.

You see? He has been a "GIRLY BOY" all along... So whatever happened to Franco Colombo?

The decision is definitely good news, but unfortunately it is only a first step. The Supreme Court will have the final say, assuming they agree to hear the case, and they may not due to its controversy. My concern is at this point I'm not sure the Court is going to be stacked in our favor. It is definitely more conservative than in times past. Whatever the decision, it will most likely be 5-4. The downside is that if the decision is against gay marriage, the Court will probably not reconsider for at least several decades, though there have been exceptions. I suppose another outcome is that the Court could overturn Prop 8 on a technicality while dodging the issue of the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage.

There is still an uphill battle ahead, and I guess only time will tell if US society is truly ready for gay marriage. But fortunately history is definitely on our side when it comes to controversial social issues.

Well. it's like this.

Either America starts acting like a Modern nation, or, like a Middle Eastern Muslim nation under Shariah law.

If you are going to give me the "Christian" argument, I will cite 1 Christian denomination that has no objection to Gay unions for each Muslim sect that has no objection to Gay unions.

Any takers?

No not me, I agree with you.

The way this decision was worded it makes it hard for the next two courts to turn it over. This could be the start of something big, Christians will be pissed, OH WELL what else is new but the rest of us cheer the outcome.

River