Prop 8 just got reveresed

[DaveB]

are you inferring that Marrying your dog is the exact same thing as homosexual marriage?
And you are right Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution but the US Constitution and Laws upheld by the Constitution such as Tax law do provide benefits to married couples so not allowing someone to be married based on Race, Sex, gender (Double gender in this case  ) would have some discrepancy with the US Constitution and the Laws that we have already agreed (as a nation) are upheld.

No I am not making any such comparison, I'm just stating that if there are no laws governing what is a valid marriage then anything goes. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution and there are no federal marriage laws, so the regulation of marriage falls to the states (as per the constitution). My complaint is the Feds usurping states rights on this and many other issues.

 

[Zombie]

Superdell.

Coffee hurts when it is still hot and comes out your nose...

Just wanted to make sure everybody knew that... I don't recommend trying it.

 

[ID Bronco]

Take that LDS church. They better get out their check book and waste more money...

Yea, that judge really showed them! Hmmmm it's their money, they believe in the cause, so is it really a waste of money? I don't see how it is. Not all battles fought are won but all cost money. They have every right to spend their money on what ever they want. The people of California voted on this subject. We live in a country for the people, by the people and the entire system and constitution are set up so the Legislatures and Congress and The Senate (elected officials who are subject to the voters) make the laws. NOT JUDGES!! This goes far, far beyond gay marriage, it is the core of the Constitution and branches of Govt.

 

[DOSS]

Yea, that judge really showed them! Hmmmm it's their money, they believe in the cause, so is it really a waste of money? I don't see how it is. Not all battles fought are won but all cost money. They have every right to spend their money on what ever they want. The people of California voted on this subject. We live in a country for the people, by the people and the entire system and constitution are set up so the Legislatures and Congress and The Senate (elected officials who are subject to the voters) make the laws. NOT JUDGES!! This goes far, far beyond gay marriage, it is the core of the Constitution and branches of Govt.

But it is the Judges job to interpret the law and make sure that it meets the framework of the Constitution.. Judges don't make laws they interpret them.. just like some people will interpret marriage as only between a man and a woman, their interpretation may not be what you like but we put them into a position to make these decisions.. if they continually make decisions that do not meet our approval we as Americans show this by voting them out and voting someone in that does what we want .. its the American way.. 4-8 years Liberal then 4-8 years conservative and all the while people complaining about what the other group is doing but not doing anything about it. I guess it is kinda like land use issues, easy to complain about but 4 hours doing a service project is probably too much to ask for

 

[ID Bronco]

But it is the Judges job to interpret the law and make sure that it meets the framework of the Constitution.. Judges don't make laws they interpret them.. just like some people will interpret marriage as only between a man and a woman, their interpretation may not be what you like but we put them into a position to make these decisions.. if they continually make decisions that do not meet our approval we as Americans show this by voting them out and voting someone in that does what we want .. its the American way.. 4-8 years Liberal then 4-8 years conservative and all the while people complaining about what the other group is doing but not doing anything about it. I guess it is kinda like land use issues, easy to complain about but 4 hours doing a service project is probably too much to ask for

TooeleCherokee, I agree with you on part of this. The difference is that the Judges are APPOINTED, not ELECTED. That is why the framers of the Constitution did it the way they did. The folks making the laws are ELECTED officials whom we can vote out or in at certain intervals. Activist Judges are one of if not the biggest threat to our Republic as it is now. Judges are to there to see if the laws put out by Elected officials are Constitutional. This Judge is on very shaky Constitutional grounds. IE: He is basing it on an argument that Homosexuality is not a choice but is like Race. They are very different. One cannot change their heritage or skin color and should have equal rights as do those with other skin colors. The difference here is rights are not given out based upon decisions. I have decided to be heterosexual. I have the choice tomorrow to stay with that or switch teams. I don't want to argue the scientific aspects of homosexuality but I believe the Judge is on very thin grounds with his opinion. It is noteworthy that he is one of two homosexual judges there. He has a dog in the fight. It will be interesting to see how it plays in the historically very liberal 9th circut.

 

[Herzog]

The Fed Judge overturned the ruling because what the people voted in was not legal within the framework of the constitution. The people would have to change the US constitution to get this to be legal (at least this Judge reads it that way). Such is why it will go to the US supreme court for them to decide once and for all of it is legal within the framework of the US Constitution.. Remember States laws have to match the state constitution and all laws have to be within the framework of what is legal within the US constitution.

I thought about that later last night after I posted. I was drowsy posting.

 

[DOSS]

TooeleCherokee, I agree with you on part of this. The difference is that the Judges are APPOINTED, not ELECTED. That is why the framers of the Constitution did it the way they did. The folks making the laws are ELECTED officials whom we can vote out or in at certain intervals. Activist Judges are one of if not the biggest threat to our Republic as it is now. Judges are to there to see if the laws put out by Elected officials are Constitutional. This Judge is on very shaky Constitutional grounds. IE: He is basing it on an argument that Homosexuality is not a choice but is like black skin. They are very different. One cannot change their heritage or skin color and should have equal rights as do those with other skin colors. The difference here is rights are not given out based upon decisions. I have decided to be heterosexual. I have the choice tomorrow to stay with that or switch teams. I don't want to argue the scientific aspects of homosexuality but I believe the Judge is on very thin grounds with his opinion. It is noteworthy that he is one of two homosexual judges there. He has a dog in the fight. It will be interesting to see how it plays in the historically very liberal 9th circut.

Well not all judges are appointed and you can still vote for someone different to appoint new judges
Lets take Homosexuality and 'Say' that it is a choice, I say that Religion is a choice. it is your choice to believe in a higher power how would all of the people who chose to believe in a higher power to find that they are now not allowed to practice their religion.. or could we switch this around to say that Homosexuality is a religion and they practice the communion in a different way than lets say a Catholic, something to think about.. in the end I contend that there is no argument against Homosexuality that can not be equally argued the other way - its all a personal opinion thing here

Just remember if it would have come up against a conservative Judge that the Liberals would be saying that the conservative had a dog in the fight as well.

 

[Cody]

I have decided to be heterosexual. I have the choice tomorrow to stay with that or switch teams.

Do you? You can just decide to think dudes are sexy? Interesting....since I don't really know you I'll refrain from extending your line of reasoning one step forward.

I'd be interested to hear how many homosexual's you have had this conversation with that agree with you.

It is noteworthy that he is one of two homosexual judges there. He has a dog in the fight. It will be interesting to see how it plays in the historically very liberal 9th circut.

Sure, I can agree with that. But can't the same be said for a heterosexual judge from an orthodox (or even heterodox) religious background?

Nobody is trying to take rights away from heterosexual marriages, or tell religious groups who they can and can not marry. Church's can still choose not to recognize and perform gay marriage because it's a private club created by and for people--they can choose their own membership requirements. But the government can still allow it. The government allows the sale and consumption of alcohol, but the LDS church CHOOSES not to partake in that.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a logical and remotely defensible argument in regards to how a homosexual marriage somehow legitimizes, in any way, a heterosexual's relationship with their own spouse.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

To expand the arguement. I agree that allowing a homosexual marriage is a 'moral enforcement' that doesn't affect my marriage, it takes nothing away from it.

On the otherhand, what does polygamy do to hurt my marriage? Society? In its pure form it doesn't have any relevance to those outside the marriage no? Then how come its illegal in 50 states and yet the constitution hasn't protected their moral discretion?

I could care less what people do, but I do agree that when the people speak (ie 51+% then that is the constitution speaking. We are the people and we have the right to decide how our lives should be balanced.

 

[DOSS]

ie 51+% then that is the constitution speaking. We are the people and we have the right to decide how our lives should be balanced.

by that argument if 51% of the people decided today to vote in a Law that makes it ok to evict every Jew from the country with only the clothes on their back then it would be constitutionally ok? - I disagree as it would have to be a constitutional amendment to make that ok as the constitution already has amendments that say that is not 'Legal'. It may be a technicality but that is how our system is set up.. those dang pesky checks and balances..

-- I think the polygamy thing is a joke myself (some of the things some of them do suck but they are nothing different than some non polygs do)

Extremist Unite

 

[SAMI]

i'LL BRING SOME PITCH FIRKS

 

[cannoncrawler]

I have the choice tomorrow to stay with that or switch teams.

next time we go to moab, we are getting different rooms!

 

[Ogre Palowakski]

I do not see what this has to do with anything. I am pretty sure that all the yes votes where not LDS. Yes they supported it but so did over %50 of the state. I hate it when people try to bring religion into these things.

 

[Cody]

I don't have a problem with polygamy at all. If you can handle more than one bat-shit crazy woman in your life all the time, then more power to you. In fact, run for President.

The reason I think polygamy is different, is that culture supports and is perpetuated by arranged marriages between a grown man and an adolescent female. If 40 year olds weren't marrying 12-14 year olds, I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Ogre Palowakski]

I don't have a problem with polygamy at all. If you can handle more than one bat-shit crazy woman in your life all the time, then more power to you. In fact, run for President.

The reason I think polygamy is different, is that culture supports and is perpetuated by arranged marriages between a grown man and an adolescent female. If 40 year olds weren't marrying 12-14 year olds, I wouldn't have a problem.

:thumbs:

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...The reason I think polygamy is different, is that culture supports and is perpetuated by arranged marriages between a grown man and an adolescent female. If 40 year olds weren't marrying 12-14 year olds, I wouldn't have a problem.

That is certainly the most infamous subset of polygamists, but the actual majority are legal consenting adults that choose this as a way of life. When all the Texas stuff hit the media last year the local news spotlighted a family in Spanish Fork (or Nephi?). All normal (ie no jeans under dresses and patent bun hair) wives, educated, teachers living in a very modern home with children that look no different then the neighbor. They were living in fear of reprimand due to the Texas situations. Shall we remember Short Creek?

 

[redXJ]

I don't have a problem with polygamy at all. If you can handle more than one bat-shit crazy woman in your life all the time, then more power to you. In fact, run for President.

The reason I think polygamy is different, is that culture supports and is perpetuated by arranged marriages between a grown man and an adolescent female. If 40 year olds weren't marrying 12-14 year olds, I wouldn't have a problem.

agree 100%

 

[ID Bronco]

Just remember if it would have come up against a conservative Judge that the Liberals would be saying that the conservative had a dog in the fight as well.

I agree that it would be the other way around but there is no denying that it is that way now. Never will both sides (there are probably many sides) see it the same way.

Do you? You can just decide to think dudes are sexy? Interesting....since I don't really know you I'll refrain from extending your line of reasoning one step forward.

Sure, I can agree with that. But can't the same be said for a heterosexual judge from an orthodox (or even heterodox) religious background?

Nobody is trying to take rights away from heterosexual marriages, or tell religious groups who they can and can not marry. Church's can still choose not to recognize and perform gay marriage because it's a private club created by and for people--they can choose their own membership requirements. But the government can still allow it. The government allows the sale and consumption of alcohol, but the LDS church CHOOSES not to partake in that.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a logical and remotely defensible argument in regards to how a homosexual marriage somehow legitimizes, in any way, a heterosexual's relationship with their own spouse.

Thanks! I can decide fat girls are cute or redheads are attractive or what ever. That's how I see it and it's just an Opinion. Again as stated earlier I am no expert on homosexuality and didn't and don't want to argue it, but constitutionally it's different than race which is what the opinion is based upon.

I don't have a problem with polygamy at all. If you can handle more than one bat-shit crazy woman in your life all the time, then more power to you. In fact, run for President.

The reason I think polygamy is different, is that culture supports and is perpetuated by arranged marriages between a grown man and an adolescent female. If 40 year olds weren't marrying 12-14 year olds, I wouldn't have a problem.

Agreed, but MANY of the supporters of Homosexual marriages would go totally crazy if the measure was for Plygs.

That is certainly the most infamous subset of polygamists, but the actual majority are legal consenting adults that choose this as a way of life. When all the Texas stuff hit the media last year the local news spotlighted a family in Spanish Fork (or Nephi?). All normal (ie no jeans under dresses and patent bun hair) wives, educated, teachers living in a very modern home with children that look no different then the neighbor. They were living in fear of reprimand due to the Texas situations. Shall we remember Short Creek?

100% agreed

Always a fun and entertaining discussion on RME!

 

[SAMI]

I went to school with a bunch of polygs.. That family had a kid or three in every grade! No shit, and they all looked like copies of eachother.. If that makes sense. I remember one of the moms would pick them up in an old station wagon and load 10-15 kids inside of it.. It was something else, because none of the kids ever showed much expression on their faces, ever.

THAT's why polygs are nuts. Gays? Whatever they want to do - it really doesn't effect me.

 

[Milner]

Wow 2010 and some people still think homosexuality is a choice....:-\