Ted Olson is a constitutional lawyer and a long-time conservative voice in the Republican Party. He was George W’s attorney in the 2000 election case Bush v Gore. Later, he was appointed Solicitor General of the United States by George W. Bush.
He joined with his opponent in the 2000 election case, David Boies, in filing suit against Prop 8 which had overturned California law allowing gay marriage.
Here’s what he has to say about the 9th Circuit Court backing the latest victory over Prop 8 – and taking the case to the Supreme Court:
Teapublicans should look to another issue to divide the sheeple. There may still be opportunity with Muslims or even Mexicans but the window of opportunity is closing.
spelling check abive .. it’s “too young….”.
Neocons and Neolibs both idiots cut from the same cloth.
I am not too young to remember that liberty and the right to free association are conservative principles.
The Republican Party has consistently courted the far right evangelical base that has historically attempted to deny equal rights for minorities, women, homosexuals, or any other segment of the population that does not conform to their rigid system of beliefs.
The fourteenth and nineteenth amendments should have been unnecessary to clarify that the Bill of Rights applies equally to all constituents of the Constitution.
Ha! She’s gave kudos to Ron Paul.
*She gave*
What is missing in this conversation is “By the People for the People”.
Constitution clearly does not state marriage as a human right. As such States can regulate it whichever way they want (hopefully following the will of the population). Regulation that say, blond people can’t marry redheads is completely within Constitutional rights. No judge should be able to claim that such (odd) rule is not Constitutional. Also, particularly when some regulation Constitutionally in the hands of the States is decided on referendum where The People have voted directly – no judge should have any say. Or we cease to be “By the People for the People” and become Unelected Bureaucracy.
So what should be done in accord with Constitution and without Unelected Dictators imposing their will on The People? – Those interested in what they see as civil inequities should work hard to change hearts and minds of The People sot that The People themselves reverse thinking and remove inequity. NOT by dictate but by free will. Notice how in such society tension around the issue also vanishes – if hearts and minds are changed in majority, there is real support for the issue. Difference between slaves of Great Dictator Judge ordered what to do/think and free people working in accord.
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia’s miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia’s law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with ‘the fundamental freedom” of marriage.
The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t cover marriage. Just more intellectually dishonest bullshit playing pretend the constitution says what ever you feel like at the moment to get your agenda through.
Oh how’d that work out for everyone when Bush did that after 9/11 and grabbed your face and wipped his ass with it.
Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government.
After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government.
In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws.
What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
Bingo!
The 14th Amendment, also interestingly, was mostly about stopping the States from instituting gun control. Many southern states prevented blacks from arming themselves. Hard to lynch a man when he has a shotgun pointed at your face.
My, how times have changed.
Like I said, thank you for the patriot act you intellectually dishonest asshole
“The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t cover marriage”
That’s a bold statement. Please elaborate.
If a law says NOBODY can marry the same sex. Then guess what…. that’s being applied EQUALLY. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest bullshit.
I’m for Same Sex Marriage, but this bullshit lying about the fundamentals of law is why we have a fucking Patriot Act, The NDAA, and the spirit of SOPA/PIPA is being enforced even though the laws got shelved.
Carving out special rights for some people while denying it to others is the very definition of unequal protection under the law.
Your definition would also uphold miscegenation laws, which have already been ruled unconstitutional.
“no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 14th amendment is part of the constitution too.
That’s an incredibly shallow understanding of the nature of democracies and the role of government. By your logic, if a majority of citizens decided that we should seize your property and banish you to Peru, it would be perfectly okay. Government exists as much to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority as it does to enable the will of the majority.
And are these far right people following the teachings of their religion? Or are they manipulating things to be intellectually dishonest to advance their own hedonistic agendas?
Do you think atheistic forms of government like Communism addresses those gripes of yours? Think again.
And are these far right people following the teachings of their religion? Or are they manipulating things to be intellectually dishonest to advance their own hedonistic agendas?
Why don’t you ask them.
Do you think atheistic forms of government like Communism addresses those gripes of yours? Think again.
We are discussing the Constitution, not Communism. Atheism is irrelevant.
Completely relevant when you SEEM to make an issue of religion being a root cause of a bigger problem.
The Constitution promotes freedom of religion because the forefathers wanted to avoid having another Church of England. Meaning that there were no consequences of you not joining a “national” religion if you chose not to do so. That separation of church and state was originally meant to be a one-way street. Not a two-way street. Meaning the masses can push their religious views onto government.
That said, you seem to have a beef with a certain segment of the religious population… the “really religious”. I simply pointed out a form of government that is atheistic to counter if your point had some validity.
It seems that religious or not, in the end it’s just people stepping on other people’s toes in the name of whatever agenda (twisted or not) it may be.
“Far right evangelicals” are nothing more than a straw man in this case. Atheists have proven to be just as cunning (if you choose to be intellectually honest).
To be intellectually honest, there is no prohibition for anyone to practice their religion.
On the other hand, no person is compelled to practice a religion.
That separation of church and state was originally meant to be a one-way street. Not a two-way street.
According to whom?
Meaning the masses can push their religious views onto government.
What religious views should be pushed onto government, yours or mine?
“Meaning the masses can push their religious views onto government.
What religious views should be pushed onto government, yours or mine? /// Well argued Orchi. The Guyver is wrong from multiple viewpoints. “A wall of Seperation” is indeed a two way barrier.
Its hard to explain what “pushing a religious view onto government” means except” establishing religion. The notion that original intent meant no establishment of a Federal Religion even if true was never the rule.
The rule as set by express Court ruling makes the common sense understanding that you can not have freedom OF religion without having freedom FROM religion. I don’t know why the fundies get their panties in such a wad over that interpretation. As you imply, they all think their flavor of religion is what will be recognized as appropriate?
Any body else feel another dark age creeping up on us?
I completely agree.
Take an American History class. If not, the History Channel could shed some light for you. Separation of Church and state has been redefined within the last 50 or so years. The original intent was to avoid a “Church of the United States” like the Church of England.
Whatever view gets enough votes to get advanced though a Democratic Republic.
I think if pushed I could give a few characteristics of a neocon but I’m drawing a blank for neolib. Seems like a made up equivalency of no validity==like most neocon equivalencies.
Orchi==conservative=status quo. The Bill of Rights did not give rights to landless males, women, and blacks. It took liberals = change to extend the franchise/liberty. If we were playing horseshoes, your score would be zero.
Dismal–I haven’t watched the video, but I believe the Court Decision was NOT based on application of original constitutional language but rather the notion that once a court establishes a right, that right cannot thereafter have exceptions made to it unless there are exceptional circumstances. Your analysis whether right or wrong in some other circumstance is simply irrelevant to this issue.
As Usual Dallas is the only one with anything intelligent to post and Pedro hasn’t got out of bed yet.
Ha, ha.
To continue the theme of false equivalencies, we have the Guyver. If A allows for B, and C allows for B, then A and C are the same. Hopefully, the error of the distributed middle is easy to see?
Some would say a neolib is nothing more than another name for a neocon but just trying to identify with a Libertarian base.
In context, those liberals you speak of would be Libertarians in this day and age.
“Neoliberalism is a contemporary form of economic liberalism that emphasizes the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets to promote globalization. Neoliberals therefore seek to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the world.”
Clinton’s support of NAFTA was a neoliberal position, for example.
I think it’s been long established that you’re a master of logical fallacies.
Afterall, aren’t you the one who follows the very logical fallacy you’re citing in asserting your man-made global warming alarmism in the past? 🙂
No.
Ha!
The Bill of Rights did not give rights to landless males, women, and blacks..
Where do you find that in the Constitution?
Good One.
But you made the claim first.
Where do you find that blacks can vote and aren’t counted as 3/5th of a person for representational purposes?
Were you polled on that “How Stoopid are our Kiddies” thread just recently?
Fairly abysmal recall of our basic history. Are you aware that Black people used to be slaves in the USA? WHAT????? You thought they could vote nonetheless?
What that would be a logic FAIL on top of a knowledge fail. Probably learning so much day in and day out that first in got pushed out?
Better check with your doc for perforated eardrums.
Sarcasm. Why the Sarcasm? Forgive me Orchi.
Put in another way, the only people who originally had the right to vote were rich, white, land-owning males.
Was that written in the Constitution?
The forefathers didn’t want another a Church of England so they framed the Constitution around the idea of separation of church and state.
Was that written in the Constitution?
The forefathers didn’t like the Articles of the Confederation because the Federal government was too weak in trying to get their personal “loans” to the states paid back (for helping to finance the Revolutionary War).
Was that written in the Constitution?
True Enough Guyver. I was overbroad thinking a machete good enough to demolish an incorrect representation of the Constitution when I should have used a scaple to avoid too much the same error myself. “The Constitution when read with State Laws of the day…..”
Its unconstitutional to remove rights from people ?
For a president who boasts about being a constitutional law professor, Obama seems to hava a habit of removing the peoples rights.
Just an observation from a foreigner
Right-Wing Evangelicals — (noun) — Followers of family-values megachurch preachers who haven’t been caught on their knees in a stall at the bus station yet.
A few of them have been caught fairly recently.
Republican Sex Scandals
To be fair, Democrats come in a close second place:
Democrat Sex Scandals
It’s actually been a bad week for President Obama, including this decision.
SGK v. PP awakened people that SGK gave monies away (I hadn’t been aware of that), and also reminded a devoted group (Prolife) that PP does perform abortions. Whether you or I agree with that isn’t the point, Mr. Obama pledged to reduce abortions, and PP is reminder of that pledge.
The Prop8 overturn by the Ninth Circuit Court is a flash in the pan: the vast majority of decisions by the 9th Circuit are overturned by SCOTUS. More importantly. however, it is a reminder that President Obama doesn’t believe in Gay Marriage (he does endorse Civil Unions).
Oh, and how can I forget the HHS directive to the hospitals run by religious institutions??
Christians and Jews are having a field day with that one!
Guyver–I think the more standard use of neolib would be neoliberal not neolibertarian. But, it is definitional as anyone wishes.
But you have got your logic with Orchi wrong. In the USA, the right pimps the religious fundies in order to “get out the vote.”
Your challenge:
And are these far right people following the teachings of their religion? /// Yes.–as defined. The fundies, the thumpers, the KKK with the bible in one hand and the white sheet in the other.
Or are they manipulating things to be intellectually dishonest to advance their own hedonistic agendas? /// You switched horses mid stream there. Its the NeoCons pimping the fundies. The fundies are following their dogma and the NeoCons are the ones being intellecturally dishonest. The fundies are just being stoopid and easily led. You gotta keep your stupids straight!
Do you think atheistic forms of government like Communism addresses those gripes of yours? /// Those gripes? Hmmm………..very ambiguous what you are referring too especially since you switched horses mid rant. Do the commies manipulate their base in intellectually dishonest ways? Of course. I don’t know the percentage but thats what leadership is all about.
Think again. /// Good general advice.
DON–rights are taken away all the time “with due process of law. Obama has nothing to do with this issue. Think Again.
I don’t disagree.
No I didn’t. You’re not seeing me in context because of dogmatism.
The problem isn’t about a religious right or the secular / atheistic left. Both sides play the “get out the vote” card.
From what I heard, Obama is really needing a strong showing from minorities this November if he stands a chance to subdue a GOP challenger. Problem is the Left fears that minorities for this election year are not as energized to get to the voting booth as they were in 2008. How does the liberal left try to change this? They’re playing the race card in order to get the liberal sheeple motivated to get to the voting booth or face at least 4 years of racism / discrimination.
Any negative criticism against Obama’s performance is getting interpreted as closet racism by the left.
But sure, you and OrchidCup can try to say that only the GOP resorts to this level of manipulation. Think again.
Only dumbshits, aka those Pukes pimping their Fundy base, don’t recognize that abortions are reduced when family planning services are made available.
Just another case of the stupid Pukes voting/acting against their own stated/recognized interests.
Its downright funny to watch the various parties twist in the wind from their own stupidity–trying to lie and spin their way out of what is obvious.
Good NeoCons==I thought no abortions even for rape and incest was pretty far gone but they trumped that with no birth controls either. I suspect slavery will be back on the agenda soon.
Stoopid Puke Hoomans. Not worth the lead to cure them.
Only dumbshits, aka those Pukes pimping their Fundy base, don’t recognize that abortions are reduced when family planning services are made available.
“Family Planning Services” is merely a euphemism for passing out free condoms to those dirty filthy hoomans that practice fornication without the blessing of God.
I thought no abortions even for rape and incest was pretty far gone but they trumped that with no birth controls either. I suspect slavery will be back on the agenda soon.
Slavery is clearly supported by the Holy Scriptures.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The Repukes HAVE NO PRINCIPLES – EXCEPT MORE TAX CUTS FOR TH 1% and will SAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING TO SATISFY THAT DESIRE !!! All the rest are HOT BUTTONS they use to DIVIDE AND CONQUER THE ELECTORATE to make you believe you are one of them !!! But if you are not A MILLIONAIRE OR BILLIONAIRE, you are NOT ONE OF THEM AND CAN “DROP DEAD” as Gerald Ford famously told NYC !!! So, understand that ANY VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN IS A VOTE FOR ***EVEN MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AND THEIR CORPORATIONS***, MORE TAXES ON YOU, AND A KNIFE IN THE HANDS OF THESE BASTARDS TO DRIVE INTO YOUR BACK !!!
And the dance of distractions goes on… The left pointing fingers at the right, the right pointing fingers at the left, Democrats vs Republicans…
Post after post, its very clear, those calling one side sheeple, are just as much sheeple themselves. This is why the same losers keep getting re-elected and nothing ever changes.
That’s how they like us, distracted and fighting among ourselves…
Dance puppets, dance. Enjoy it while it lasts, it won’t be long before we’re all strangled by our own strings…
I am a muppet, not a puppet.
OK so rather than strings, you have someone hand stuffed up your backside…
> Too young to remember when conservatives defended civil
> rights?
I think you’ve got it all wrong. The issue is the civil rights of those who don’t accept homosexual marriage.
Homosexuals already have the same rights as anyone else: they may marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want is something NEW, not the same.
The rights that will be violated is the rights of those of us who don’t accept that homosexual marriage is a good thing. We will be forced, by law, to accept their retarded marriages as equal to those that actually do serve enduring social values and goals: procreation and proper family social roles.
The retards that pretend that law is not morality have it all wrong. By fact, law *IS* morality enforced by the backing of the state.
The issue is whether we want the force of law to impose the moral viewpoints of homosexuals (and their confused supporters) on those of us who don’t feel that it is good.
It is *OUR* rights that are being violated.
P.S. I’m not Christian so save your vitriole on that issue.
Considering the definition of marriage is antediluvian, it is rather presumptuous to think a judge (or even a panel of judges) could redefine it.
Please explain how the arbitrary denial of rights to a specific group enforces or protects your civil rights.
Please explain how civic equality infringes your rights in any way.
=Please explain how the arbitrary denial of rights to a specific group enforces or protects your civil rights=
I don’t believe I have indicated that I am in favor of denying rights to anyone.
I am saying I don’t believe a group of men in legal robes are any more in the position of redefining a word than are men in religious robes.
I am saying I don’t believe a group of men in legal robes are any more in the position of redefining a word than are men in religious robes.
What word is being redefined?
Marriage.
Unless you can point to a source wherein the word marriage meant a union of two same sex members.
And then please point to a source wherein a judicial branch redefined *any* word.
Pocono:
I don’t believe I was talking to you either. I should have named Irrational Ranger directly, but hoped the (flawed) nested comment system would be enough.
Secular or religious definitions are not relevant to this legal discussion.
Voting rights were not always historically given to everyone.
Slavery used to be legal and commonplace
Religion used to be dictated by the government.
All these things have “traditional” definitions that are trumped by our government.
To define marriage in an exclusionary way is illegal based on our constitution.
If you want it defined thusly, then the government should stop recognizing *all* marriage as a legal construct.
Why would someone else begin able to do the same thing you can but in a different way devalue what you have?
If you’re threatened by gay marriage I think you have other issues that need to be dealt with.
Rational Ranger says:
2/8/2012 at 11:14 am
> Too young to remember when conservatives defended civil
> rights?
I think you’ve got it all wrong. The issue is the civil rights of those who don’t accept homosexual marriage. /// You’re joking right? Rough Draft for a piece in The Onion??? YOU don’t have to accept homosexual marriage, you only have to leave the homo’s alone. FREEEEEEEDOM: someone else doing something you don’t like. What about MY civil rights being violated because I don’t accept excruciatingly stoopid people like yourself. WHAT ABOUT MY CIVIL RIGHTS???? WHA, WHA, WHA!!
Homosexuals already have the same rights as anyone else: they may marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want is something NEW, not the same. /// That is about as clever as you get. It is definitional. But the right at issue is described as a right of association. Not “a right to marry someone of the opposite sex.” It is hard to come to grips with an issue if you reinterpret it in unique and “special” ways.
The rights that will be violated is the rights of those of us who don’t accept that homosexual marriage is a good thing. /// That right is not denied you.
We will be forced, by law, to accept their retarded marriages as equal to those that actually do serve enduring social values and goals: procreation and proper family social roles. /// How so?
The retards that pretend that law is not morality have it all wrong. By fact, law *IS* morality enforced by the backing of the state. /// Yes, that is what everybody thinks. More made up BS by your little coven?
The issue is whether we want the force of law to impose the moral viewpoints of homosexuals (and their confused supporters) on those of us who don’t feel that it is good. /// Not quite right, but I’ll accept that framing. Thats what all your rights are===name a right and there will be a group against your having it. The only thing protecting you from your own stupidity is the law. Ain’t that a bitch?
It is *OUR* rights that are being violated. /// Just the opposite.
P.S. I’m not Christian so save your vitriole on that issue. /// Well, you are just as dumb as a fundy. How did that happen? Head trauma?
It is *OUR* rights that are being violated.
Please explain how your rights are being violated by allowing others to have the same rights.
> Please explain how your rights are being violated by
> allowing others to have the same rights.
Well, duh. I have the right to refuse to recognize homosexual relationships as valid now in many settings including business and personal settings. If it becomes law, then the force of law will impose its will on me to extend the same status for homosexual relationships that I extend to valid male-female relationships. Therefore, my right to refuse to recognize these relationships as not equal to male-female relationships will be denied me. I have the right now, those laws will take them away from me. My rights are diminished.
That’s what the supporters of homosexual marriages want: they want to deny the rights of those who don’t accept their marriages. They also want to normalize their relationships by getting the authority and legitimacy of the state behind their so-called marriages.
As I said, they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex: THAT is the SAME right. They don’t want that. They want a special consideration to include someone of the same sex.
They also have the right to get married, just not to get the special legal privileges that we have reserved for biological families. In fact, there are many non-marriage mechanisms created that extend many of the same benefits (i.e. trusts and such). But male-female marriage *IS* a moral, cultural and necessary institution requiring special recognition, promotion and protection.
Homosexuals can go out and get married by anyone they want, in accordance with the laws. What they can’t have is the special privileges that we have set aside for male/female relationships supportive of the family (which have been eroded anyway by liberal regimes, anyway).
It’s no different than if someone wanted to marry multiple wives, under age children, or a mule. Let’s say that you find your religious denomination that accepts those things and performs a religious (or secular) ceremony. Bingo, in accordance with that tradition (moral viewpoint), you’re married (but the state may not recognize it). The rest of society also may not recognize those as valid statuses. You cannot register those marriages with the state and get special benefits that the state has reserved for biologically-necessary male-female relationships.
You want to use the force of the state to force the acceptance of homosexual relationships as equal to male-female relationships when they are not equal. One has a procreation necessity, the other is merely a convenience for homosexuals.
It is my right to refuse to recognize those relationships as not equivalent to male-female marriages and to refuse to extend certain financial and property rights that will be violated.
“You cannot register those marriages with the state and get special benefits that the state has reserved for biologically-necessary male-female relationships.”
Did you know that there are many male/female marriages that don’t result in children? Marriage isn’t a license to reproduce.
> Did you know that there are many
> male/female marriages that don’t result in
> children? Marriage isn’t a license to
> reproduce.
What’s your point? I never said that there weren’t.
But, the institution is a cultural and moral institution, which has been encoded into the law. It exists, as I see it, for several purposes:
1. Protection and promotion of procreation
2. Formal recognition of lineal relationships
3. A definition of preferred roles supportive of many other societal benefits.
What compelling society-wide benefit is derived from homosexual relationships that warrants its equivocation with the male-female relationship? I see none.
Rather, it means that the religious, moral, associative and cultural rights and freedoms of far more people are violated.
You cannot name protection or promotion of procreation as a purpose of marriage: People who cannot breed, or do not want to breed are allowed and encouraged to marry.
Rather, it means that the religious, moral, associative and cultural rights and freedoms of far more people are violated.
Violated in what way?
Actually you did. Unless I’m not understanding what you meant by “biologically-necessary”
Again I ask. Why are you threatened by gay marriage and if it were legal why would it devalue your own? live and let live.
“1. Protection and promotion of procreation”
There are almost 7 billion people on the planet. I’d say procreation is doing just fine and isn’t in need of protection.
I’m going to suggest a name change for you, add an IR in from of your username.
Sorry, to one of the largest gay communities in the US, the gay community of Cali (mostly living S.F. and Southern Cali). Nothing personal, it’s just financial politics.
Cali has been a economic disaster since 2000, and now it is an economic holocaust as you know. If you want to support your state support Prop 8 now, stop fighting it, keep it tied up in the legal system. And when the Golden State financially recovers, Prop 8 will go down like a $5 crack ho.
Think about it, since stats show a larger percentage of gay men (including male transgender and some lesbians and female transgender) are in a higher tax bracket, thus paying more tax. You would be still be a vital tax revenue to the state. Which that is really how the law makers see you, liberal and conservative. But, than again being married would provide tax brakes, gay people wouldn’t otherwise get.
Now it goes to the Supreme Court to decide if same sex couples – that is freaking too many damn key strokes- that is gays will or will not get a tax brake. I wonder what the opinion of the Justices in terms of the horrible economic state Cali put it’s self in.
If you didn’t know my comments here and concerning Cali really are reflective of the Fed government and the financial disaster we as a country are in. Gay marriage is really about tax revenue. If gay marriage was allowed across the board in this country that would be a great loss in tax revenue. To make up for the gov. would take measures to re-coop that tax loss effecting everyone one in higher tax code. We all know it.
Perhaps married persons should not get a tax break or any other preferential treatment.
That would be a “moral” viewpoint.
In particular, it’s one that I disagree with.
In fact, male-female relationships should be protected and promoted both culturally and by force of law.
As Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
We should be protecting and promoting the family (a kinship group) as protected and promoted above those of minority-preferred interest groups’ attempts to gain equal standing to it.
Homosexual relationships do not foster or promote the family. They are incidental relationships around a family.
My right to see the family (kin group) as a preferred and protected institution with state protection and promotion is violated when the state recognizes them as equivalent.
If you try to claim that a homosexual relationship is in any way equivalent to a kinship based family, then you would be “denying” the right of a corporation to declare itself as a family and thereby receive whatever benefits might be appropriate (as minor as they are).
Homosexual relationships do not foster or promote the family. They are incidental relationships around a family.
Point to a source that declares such.
That would be my suggestion.
Government has no business being in the marriage business.
Enforcing religious views on the government is how we got the legal attitude we have now.
If they just got out of the business, the problem would go away.
Unless you can point to a source wherein the word marriage meant a union of two same sex members.
Marriage
Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage.
Yes, that world renoknowned and unquestionable source, Wikipedia.
You asked me to point to a source.
This verdict basically shows the total incompetence of the states’ rulemakers/politicians/bureaucrats. While implementing this they should have checked it against the Constitution and they probably would have come to the same conclusion. Not passing it in the first place, would have saved a heck of a lot of people an awfull lot of money (and frustration).
All this should make you wonder what other unconstitutional laws they already have implemented? And maybe start removing or punishing those who implemented this piece of crap?
I’d be in favor of marriage (homosexual or heterosexual) if the terms were enforced. But, these people swear to stay married, “until death do us part.” Then, anywhere from five minutes to five years later, they want a divorce.
What a load!
I know what you mean.
When two people make a vow to stay together “until death do us part” and then they don’t keep their word, society should enforce their marriage vows and put them to death.
They should not enter into the agreement unless they are willing to suffer the consequences.
Enforcement of marriage terms? Good grief.
The government has no business regulating relationships much less enforce them.
Good grief.
That is a radical idea.
The government regulates everything else, why shouldn’t it regulate relationships?
The Department of Relationships should be the next thing on the agenda of the statists.
There should be a body of regulations requiring mandatory testing, licensing, counseling, and dispute resolution, and the obligatory taxes to support these services.
I can’t wait.
Teapublicans wants a Dept of Mommy and Daddy, the DMD
I smell sarcasm at it’s best. Dallas you have been punked by orchidcup.
You know why Prop 8 is illegal?
Because it is not bringing the state any money.
Cry about equality and fairness and its stomping like a jack boot on people’s rights all you want, the reality is that these imbecilic arguments about religion and hetero’s rights aren’t bringing a dime into California’s collective coffers, while getting people hitched is a big business. (The wedding dress millenary industry all by itself is paying more taxes than all the churches put together.)
Religion is an impotent pissant which serves nobody but itself.
When the politicians realize that the state employees and the courts know more than they do*, and that their dogmatic stance is actually costing them votes, the dogmatists’ll get dropped like squashed waterbugs.
*) I know that that rarely happens since all politicians always claim to know it all but they rely on others to do their research for them.
Getting people divorced is even a bigger business.
The state is passing up a lot of revenue opportunities.
When couples want out of the “till death do us part” contract let’s have a public double beheading. Pay per view style.
I wonder why Gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys are so loved by the Dims and Libs? I personally find them sexual deviants and disgusting. Still don’t know how they “have children”.
I know of a number of Repukes and Conservatives that love gays … in the closet.
Two words, Hot Lesbians.
OOOOwha!
http://tinyurl.com/6uafchz
Having married to someone who “I’d spoiled for other men” (her words, jokingly,) and who accepted her nature and left me for a woman (whom I like and who’s intellectual accomplishments I respect,) I find your attitude deviant and disgusting.
Its called love; deal with it, because these’s too damn little of it in this world to call any of it bad.
And they have children through IVF or through adoption (you know, all those poor bastards you’d likely call names.)
I’m not making an argument for or against any of this, but the “government marriages” business is already broken.
A “government marriage” is just a system that penalizes most married people via the tax system, but also grants a few legal rights.
A lot of poor people with marriage would be financially penalized in the “government handouts” department if they got a “government marriage”.
Hence a lot of African Americans are not married nor poor high school dropout Caucasians.
The “government marriages” business is stupid, will stupid tomorrow, and will likely be stupid in the foreseeable future. It is a property rights and taxation system really. Regardless of what way the Supreme Court rules on this as they probably eventually will.
And the properties rights and taxation thing is not a big deal, it isn’t like this country maintains anything close to a balanced budget or it wouldn’t be $15 billion funny bucks in the hole. So no, you are NOT paying for it. Nobody is.
Which is to say this whole issue is merely emotional:
1.) The conservatives view this as a cultural challenge. It isn’t.
2.) Gay rights people see this as some sort of social acceptance thing. It isn’t that either.
Neither side will actually obtain anything of value no matter what happens with this. So this is just about feelings and emotions, which is nice. And empty and hollow.
You’re absolutely spot on.
Its all about property and inheritance; and the right to visit a loved one in hospital, and the other 29 tax advantages that being married conveys on a couple.
Now if you’re a lone wolf cock sucker or rug muncher of either sex, you’re fucked aren’tcha?
Tax advantages?
Educated, you are not.
And the properties rights and taxation thing is not a big deal, it isn’t like this country maintains anything close to a balanced budget or it wouldn’t be $15 billion funny bucks in the hole. So no, you are NOT paying for it. Nobody is.
It is more like $15 Trillion funny bucks in the hole, with a capital ‘T’
The next law will take away reproductive rights from all people who voted for Prop 8. It’s only fair.
SOOOOOOOO many religious types don’t believe they are free unless and until everyone else is forced to believe the same way they do.
In fact Sanctorectum just said it flat out: those wanting to gay marry are “intolerant” of those who dont. Ha, ha. More pieces from the Onion???? No. He actually said it. Just as a few above do.
So blind are so many. They are indeed saved under one theory, but totally damned in another. You’d think they’d leave god to sort it all out, but no, in they jump.
CONTEXT is all.
Yea, verily.
“Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.”
-Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694–1778)
Old or New Testament Orchi?
I disagree. Monotheism under all knowing god brings discontent because it is but a product of man and is structured on the very notion of intolerance. Its only lip service to be kind. Look at what god does?
Much better: science. Its the only “belief system” that brings man together.
I like people who quote Voltaire.
He was a French philosopher living in the late 1700’s.
If he read bobbo‘s subsequent ignorant comment, he’d throw up in his mouth.
California “Poster Couple” For Gays Rights Divorcing
http://nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Poster-Couple-For-Gays-Rights-Divorcing-138944094.html
1. Many (not all) Gays are the most intolerant people on the planet (the derogatory term “breeders” comes to mind.)
2. Most religious fundamentalists are intolerant.
3. Most liberals are intolerant (esp. the morans that think we actually need to do something about Man-made Climate Change [TM].)
Gay Marriage – who the fuck cares one way of the other?
1,2,3 above should all STFU. Most of the whining is about trivial and minor issues anyway.
Thank God we’re all gonna die in December anyway.