Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

[miketpoto]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

I have no interest in appeasing assholes.

(insert joke here)

[shosh]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

I have no interest in appeasing assholes.

(insert joke here)

inserted

(no homo)

[thesightless]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

I have no interest in appeasing assholes.

(insert joke here)

again, for understanding outside of opinion, they have no interest in appeasing the GLBT population and frankly, if we all have this opinion, they outnumber ppl like me who are straight but beleive in the rights gays should damn well have. and if it comes to a vote while everyone shares this lack of interest, unfortunetly, you would have rights.

[Miroslav]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

youre correct. and i completely understand that. but at the same time i cant understand how some douches have the power to overturn a decision already made by the people. it's going to keep advancing to where its going to lead to more serious things.
for the record, when the voting took place i texted everyone to vote against the ban, so here i am only against the principle not what it took place.
as a good friend of mine said, who much like poto is very teh ghey, in california gays will quickly shed their slutty reputation when so many of them will have the opportunity to get committed. i loled a bit

I hear ya and I understand where you're coming from...but the whole thing with those "douches" being able to act in this manner is precisely and purposefully how our system was designed, pretty much since 1787. And I would argue that it generally does more good than harm. We were never intended to be a nation where "the people" (most of whom don't even know what's in the Constitution) can directly determine the outcome of all policy decisions, with no recourse to the Constitution itself. Have you considered that there were probably times prior to the Civil War when "the people" would have voted in the majority to treat black people like animals? That doesn't make it constitutionally - or ethically - valid.

Same thing with gay marriage, in my opinion. I agree with poto on this one. The interpretation of law with respect to the Constitution is always a difficult exercise, but I think those "douches" in California got this one right. For starters, look up the First, Ninth, and Foureenth Amendments. In my opinion, they will basically tell you that: (1) the whole "religious" aspect of this debate is irrelevant; (2) we don't have the power to pick and choose to which class of citizens we grant universal rights and priviledges - of which the right to legal marriage is already clearly established as one.

[CactusBeats]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

Mike, I am with you 100%. I have no right to limit your freedoms & civil rights. Many US states as of late have taken a very different direction when it comes to individual rights. For the first time ever states, instead of expanding individual rights have begun to limit them. In my view, what has made America great is the expansion of rights (inclusivity), by bringing more people into the fold of acceptability. Diverse views brought into the mainstream makes America the great place it is.

Recent constitutional refereneda prohibiting gay marriage and civil unions mark a disturbing change of direction for our republic. Even state Supreme courts or the US Supreme Court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. That requires an additional constitutional amendment (much like ending prohibition in the 30's needed a constitutional amendment). I have no doubt that in one to two more generations (20-40 years) most, if not all state constitutional bans on gay marriage and civil unions will be overturned by an additional constitutional amendment.

Ironically, states that have passed such sexually bigoted amendments will have both amendments forever etched into their constitutions for all of their future citizens to see what kind of people used to live there. What a legacy to incorporate into your state. The politics of fear and hatred (thanks to today's Republican Party) forever etched into American society for all of history to judge and see.

[toasty]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

Have you considered that there were probably times prior to the Civil War when "the people" would have voted in the majority to treat black people like animals?

I'm pretty sure that would pass in West Virginia today. Wish I was joking.

[miketpoto]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

again, for understanding outside of opinion, they have no interest in appeasing the GLBT population and frankly, if we all have this opinion, they outnumber ppl like me who are straight but beleive in the rights gays should damn well have. and if it comes to a vote while everyone shares this lack of interest, unfortunetly, you would have rights.

Luckily I don't want to get married anytime soon.

[shosh]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

Luckily I don't want to get married anytime soon.

too bad, was looking forward to seeing you in a wedding dress


Sodom and Gomorrah FTW.





i kid i kid and i know way off topic...

[88Mariner]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

inserted

(no homo)

i just spit milk all over my screen

[davetlv]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

The state, and in this case i mean any country, has absolutely no right to say who can and who can not marry - state sponsored marriage should be banned. Like wise all tax breaks and what not should be ended.

Should religious institutions wish to ordain marriage, that's fine by me, but the state, should neither condemn nor condone such behaviour, nor should it offer any type of incentive.

[Jenks]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

I hear ya and I understand where you're coming from...but the whole thing with those "douches" being able to act in this manner is precisely and purposefully how our system was designed, pretty much since 1787. And I would argue that it generally does more good than harm. We were never intended to be a nation where "the people" (most of whom don't even know what's in the Constitution) can directly determine the outcome of all policy decisions, with no recourse to the Constitution itself. Have you considered that there were probably times prior to the Civil War when "the people" would have voted in the majority to treat black people like animals? That doesn't make it constitutionally - or ethically - valid.

Same thing with gay marriage, in my opinion. I agree with poto on this one. The interpretation of law with respect to the Constitution is always a difficult exercise, but I think those "douches" in California got this one right. For starters, look up the First, Ninth, and Foureenth Amendments. In my opinion, they will basically tell you that: (1) the whole "religious" aspect of this debate is irrelevant; (2) we don't have the power to pick and choose to which class of citizens we grant universal rights and priviledges - of which the right to legal marriage is already clearly established as one.

I applaud your use of italics, parenthesis, and quotes in the above post! Solid bro.

[Miroslav]

Re: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

^^ haha. why thank you, sir!