California's same-sex marriage battle


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:18 am

Comedian Wanda Sykes once said, "I don't why so many people are worried about gay marriage. Gays didn't wreck my marriage, it was divorce that wrecked my marriage."
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:40 am

imaginative wrote:
Helen S wrote:I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!


I believe that the catholics once considered masturbation and coitus
interuptus evil, because it deprived a child of the chance of being
born. The concept would then not be entirely new. (Obviously,
extending it to each individual sperm/egg would be.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Marlow » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:47 am

Pego wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan


Ah yes, Onan, the Master Barbarian!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:51 am

tandfman wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.

They don't have to support it. They just have to let the states decide issues like that. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a federal issue.

By the way, that is apparently McCain's position on this. He opposes same-sex marriages but voted against making that a Federal law on the grounds that this was something that should be left to the states.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jhc68 » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:25 pm

How can it possibly NOT be a federal issue??? If a gay married couple move from state to state is their relationship defined by the laws of the new state or the old? Can a marriage contract be invalidated by moving from one state to another? Is it possible to be married in California but not in Utah?

Does the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution apply? Isn't throwing this to the states sort of the same as allowing states to make their own laws about slavery? Dred Scott in 1857 presented the same issues... was Scott a freeman forever because he had lived in a free state, or a slave forever because he had that status in slave states? Some politician back then said something about a house divided against itself not standing... how can we have different rules from state to state about such a basic social and legal contractual relationship?
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:48 pm

jhc68 wrote:Does the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution apply?


How about the inalienable right to 'pursuit of happiness'? I still don't understand how a gay marriage infringes on other people's rights. No one has to associate with people they don't want to. If my religion bans shellfish, can I insist you don't eat crawdaddies?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:29 pm

jhc68 wrote:how can we have different rules from state to state about such a basic social and legal contractual relationship?

We do now. The Union stands.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Cyril » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:06 pm

Here is Obama's response about prop. 8 which would ban gay marriage...

"I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

This is political speak at its finest. He is keeping his "religious core" in tact while at the same time maintaining his intellectual constitutional integrity.

We know where he really stands. He understands civil liberties and is a constitutional scholar.

The opposition to gay marriage is strictly religiously based and has no place intermingling with constitutional liberties.
Cyril
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:53 pm

Marlow wrote:
jhc68 wrote:Does the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution apply?


How about the inalienable right to 'pursuit of happiness'?

I believe that was aptly answered in "Pursuit of Happyness", honestly.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:03 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan


Ah yes, Onan, the Master Barbarian!


Clever. :lol:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:45 am

jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:04 pm

kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"


That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:25 pm

Vince wrote:
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"


That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.


Man's best friend? The happy couple, Larry and Rover?
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby Daisy » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:03 pm

gm wrote:
Vince wrote:
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"


That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.


Man's best friend? The happy couple, Larry and Rover?


More likely Emily and Rover. The men will be too busy protecting the homesteads.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mump boy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:20 am

Vince wrote:
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"


That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.


because gay marriage is the slipperly slope towards polygamy, incest and bestiality !??!?! :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby tandfman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:53 am

mump boy wrote:gay marriage is the slipperly slope towards polygamy, incest and bestiality !??!?! :roll:

And worse! (I'll let you know what's worse when I think of it.) :)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:56 am

tandfman wrote:
mump boy wrote:gay marriage is the slipperly slope towards polygamy, incest and bestiality !??!?! :roll:

And worse! (I'll let you know what's worse when I think of it.) :)


I got it! Cats marrying dogs. :P
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:13 am

SQUACKEE wrote: got it! Cats marrying dogs. :P

Been there, done that. When my wife gets catty, I end up in the dog house.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby paulthefan » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:42 am

the real interesting question is not when people in the us will stop rejecting gay "marriage" it is when will the (blue) state higher courts stop rejecting the peoples decision?
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Flumpy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:22 am

mump boy wrote:
Vince wrote:
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"


That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.


because gay marriage is the slipperly slope towards polygamy, incest and bestiality !??!?! :roll:


And miscegenation :shock: but surely that will never happen!!!
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:19 am

With all the morbid fascination among straights about "Who's Humpin' Who" it may be time for a catchy cover of an old Aretha tune.....
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:25 pm

Mennisco wrote:With all the morbid fascination among straights about "Who's Humpin' Who" it may be time for a catchy cover of an old Aretha tune.....


Aha, so 'zooming' was just a euphemism for humping?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby gh » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:43 pm

paulthefan wrote:the real interesting question is not when people in the us will stop rejecting gay "marriage" it is when will the (blue) state higher courts stop rejecting the peoples decision?


Without weighing in on the current debate here, allow me to say methinks we should all be thankful that higher courts are in place to undo mistakes made by the general populace.

If something doesn't pass a legal test it shouldn't be law; the whims of the general populace are to fickle to become the standard by which laws are made. Long live checks & balances.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest