9th Circus Court to rule on Calif Prop 8, changing defn of marriage to include same-sex

[Arbopa]

The government should NOT be in the marriage business. Period.

'Marriage' should be a religious thing, as it mostly began... all non-religious that want the same 'status', civil union. Then you can call yourself whatever you want.

The constant arguments against gay marriage from the right really make them look ignorant and intolerant.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't disagree with that. I think it would be just fine to have each state decide on gay marriage. Either way, we know that it will continue to spread from one state to another, with the "Bible belt" staying behind for another 10 or 15 years probably! And that's fine also! It just means that gay people (and there is a greater percentage of well educated, professional and therefore successful people among the gay than in the normal population) will continue to bring their skills and creativity to the "progressive" states and the bible belt will be left even further behind!

28 states is more than just the Bible Belt.

you might be surprised to learn that there homosexuals of the same bell curve of accomplishment even your backward state.

well educated + professional does not equal successful all the time

 

[Openmind]

28 states is more than just the Bible Belt.

you might be surprised to learn that there homosexuals of the same bell curve of accomplishment even your backward state.

well educated + professional does not equal successful all the time

28 states and shrinking every year! As it should be. But, either way, I didn't say ONLY the Bible belt would lag behind. . .I said that most likely the Bible belt would be the last to abandon their hyper religious and accept gay rights.

No, all educated and professional people are not always successful. . . but I wonder if being hyper-religious, with low education, and a backward view of society makes ANYONE successful!

 

[dogtowner]

28 states and shrinking every year! As it should be. But, either way, I didn't say ONLY the Bible belt would lag behind. . .I said that most likely the Bible belt would be the last to abandon their hyper religious and accept gay rights.

No, all educated and professional people are not always successful. . . but I wonder if being hyper-religious, with low education, and a backward view of society makes ANYONE successful!

growing not shrinking. and everywhere its gone to the people, the people agreed.

 

[Openmind]

growing not shrinking. and everywhere its gone to the people, the people agreed.

I disagree. And more states have recognized gay marriage over the last 8 years. . .none have gone back to not recognizing gay marriage. You, my dear, are fighting a lost war! There is no stopping the futur and what is right. . .the issue of gay rights is just the next step, the new face of civil rights! It took a long times for Black to reach equal rights under the law. . .it's not even functionally completed. But NO Southern racist, NO KKK, no fearmongering has been able to stop the wave of racial rights. It is only in the 1960's that some states were still making inter racial marriage illegal. .I guess those marriage were "not in the Constitution" either!

You can drag your feet, it may take another 10 or 15 years, maybe even 20. . .but in time, making gay marriage unlawful will be just as incomprehensible and just as stupid than the 1960's laws against inter racial marriage appear today!

 

[Texas_tea]

@(not so) Openmind ...

Your hate and disdain for all things Conservative and all people who have an opinion or view that differs from your radical leftist liberal beliefs is all too obvious in your postings. In classic liberal form, it clearly exposes your intolerance for anyone who holds a belief that differs from your on. You consistently expose yourself the be the very person that you are speaking out against. I am sure by the very blinding nature of your hate that you have never once considered that some may oppose gay marriage for different reasons that have nothing to do with southern racist, fear mongerers, the KKK, the Bible Belt, religion or all the other people, organizations and stereo-types you speak out against.

The US Constitution does not guarantee you the right to marry anyone, therefore the Federal Government has no legal say in this debate. Same sex unions are a states rights issue. A marriage license reflects the state a couple is married in, not the Country. There is a reason for this. The citizens of the state should have the right to vote on whether they want to accept same sex unions or not. California has voted NO two times now. Same sex unions should not be forced upon the citizens of any state by the state government and certainly never by the Federal Government, nor should the definition of marriage be redefined to create a legal loophole to overthrow the wishes of the voters of the state.

Personally, I support gay rights, including the ability to form a legal union. I disagree that it should be called marriage because same sex unions simply do not reflect the definition of marriage. However, I support our Constitution and the rights of the voters in this Country above my own personal beliefs and opinions. Unlike, liberal ideology, I am not in favor of forcing the majority to accept my opinions, way of life or beliefs. This is a classic example of what makes liberalism wrong and so dangerous to the Freedom of all mankind on this planet.

 

[Openmind]

@ Texas

Are you done with your ranting? Are you feeling better now?

Good, then you can go back to see where I stated that I was all for each state deciding on the gay marriage issue.
And tha NEITHER GAY NOR HETEROSEXUAL marriages were in the constitution, but EQUAL RIGHTS under the law was.

and it is obvious that CA would have voted in favor of Gay marriage, if it had not been for the $70 millions spent by people fom Utah mostly to buy the vote to pass prop 8 .

Now, you can think whatever you wish about me. . .it doesn't affect me at all.
In fact, I really enjoy your frustation right now. YOU areso open minded. . . When people agree with you!

Enjoy the news! LOL

 

[Arbopa]

some may oppose gay marriage for different reasons that have nothing to do with southern racist, fear mongerers, the KKK, the Bible Belt, religion

In general, everyone I have ever seen that stands against it, usually uses a religious backing to support their intolerance. I have never seen a single reason given in opposition that is valid.

Same sex unions should not be forced upon the citizens of any state by the state government and certainly never by the Federal Government, nor should the definition of marriage be redefined to create a legal loophole to overthrow the wishes of the voters of the state.

See, this is some of that invalid thought process. Who is forcing it upon you? Who is going to make you get married to another guy? Oh, nobody is. There is no force 'upon the citizens' ... definitions change, so going back the the 'do not redefine' is another bit of invalid logic.

All in all, what you post is no less one sided, talking point stuff than a lot of what I have seen 'openmind' post...

 

[dogtowner]

In general, everyone I have ever seen that stands against it, usually uses a religious backing to support their intolerance. I have never seen a single reason given in opposition that is valid.

what is the bar you set for being valid ?

See, this is some of that invalid thought process. Who is forcing it upon you? Who is going to make you get married to another guy? Oh, nobody is. There is no force 'upon the citizens' ... definitions change, so going back the the 'do not redefine' is another bit of invalid logic.

All in all, what you post is no less one sided, talking point stuff than a lot of what I have seen 'openmind' post...

in the current example, courts are forcing it against the will of the people of California.

 

[Arbopa]

I didn't read the california stuff, as honestly, I don't care about california... it is one of the most out of control places full of idiots, in the USA.

But again we have the 'forcing it' ... what exactly is being forced on people??? That others have equality as defined in the federal Constitution?

Oh my...

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't read the california stuff, as honestly, I don't care about california... it is one of the most out of control places full of idiots, in the USA.

But again we have the 'forcing it' ... what exactly is being forced on people??? That others have equality as defined in the federal Constitution?

Oh my...

no question on Cali's woes but oddly enough that's a good reason for being concerned about this.

there is a cost to government for changing the definition of (civil) marriage. I don't k now specifics of Cali welfare but take the example of SSA Survivor benefits as an example. SSA did not pluck it's rates out of thin air, they were calculated to be able to cover the obligation of expected payouts. One reason its in trouble now is related to simply handing out money to new demographics without they having contributed to the income side (called vote buying).

even the homosexual community has admitt4ed that its the benefit they seek.

so in a simple sense its taxation without representation for courts to decide this. the people may be ignorant of this when they go to the voting booth but voter ignorance is nothing new.

 

[Arbopa]

So you are saying gay people do not work and contribute to SSA???

 

[dogtowner]

So you are saying gay people do not work and contribute to SSA???

the payments they and everyone else make do not provide for instant survivor benefits. premiums are based on projected payout requirements. change the payout and it impacts the financial soundness.

 

[Openmind]

no question on Cali's woes but oddly enough that's a good reason for being concerned about this.

there is a cost to government for changing the definition of (civil) marriage. I don't k now specifics of Cali welfare but take the example of SSA Survivor benefits as an example. SSA did not pluck it's rates out of thin air, they were calculated to be able to cover the obligation of expected payouts. One reason its in trouble now is related to simply handing out money to new demographics without they having contributed to the income side (called vote buying).

even the homosexual community has admitt4ed that its the benefit they seek.

so in a simple sense its taxation without representation for courts to decide this. the people may be ignorant of this when they go to the voting booth but voter ignorance is nothing new.

So, now you are admitting that your "moral" concern to "save the holly institution of marriage" is nothing more than greed and money related concerns?

Nice step in the direction of honesty at least!

However, this is a moot point! If a man is married toa man, obviously his spouse has the rightto his Survivor SSA! but then again, he wouldn't have a female spouse that would be collecting it, right?
so, what is the difference WHO receives the survivor benefit?

ther isactually more problem with that if a man has been marriedand divorced three times, after marriages that have lasted over ten years each!

Once again, the sex of the surviving spouse has nothing to do with this!

And, with the strong decrease in marriage of any kind over tha last 20 years, it seems that this trend would leave less survivors spouses anyway, which probably was not expected in the long term predictions and actuary charts of 30 years ago.

Your point is moot.

 

[Arbopa]

the payments they and everyone else make do not provide for instant survivor benefits. premiums are based on projected payout requirements. change the payout and it impacts the financial soundness.

Yeah, this just seems like more lame excuses to deny equal rights. Gay people getting married is not going to kill off SSA... those in charge in government have been killing off SSA for a long time.