Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Socialite

But are there times when this ideal is not served? Wasn't that what became of Slavery and the Civil Rights movement??

The pro-same-sex marriage groups would use that argument and claim this is one of those opportunities. The majority cannot vote for something that opposes the Constitutional rights of another. The Constitution is specifically for the protection of the minority and those not in power.

Isn't what your describing simply tyranny by the minority?

This isn't civil rights no matter how bad they want to portray it that way.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Isn't what your describing simply tyranny by the minority?

This isn't civil rights no matter how bad they want to portray it that way.

Depends who you ask.

In what ways are you being tyrannized?

I've heard the "civil rights" arguments on both sides and I can see both sides' point. The issue here is the rights of homosexual men and women to also participate in state-sponsored marriage.

Being excluded from that, they certainly feel denied that right by the majority, and are arguing their case with the Constitution.

[mfblume]

While people ask where will it stop when Christians influence the gov't, as though immodesty will be outlawed, where will it stop with perversion? Marriage with children, condoning pedophilia? People are out there who lobby for that, you know.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

While people ask where will it stop when Christians influence the gov't, as though immodesty will be outlawed, where will it stop with perversion? Marriage with children, condoning pedophilia? People are out there who lobby for that, you know.

Our society currently has laws to protect the "innocent," which includes children. So there remains a fundamental difference.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by mfblume

While people ask where will it stop when Christians influence the gov't, as though immodesty will be outlawed, where will it stop with perversion? Marriage with children, condoning pedophilia? People are out there who lobby for that, you know.

Yes, and they're sick people. Children cannot legally consent to marriage or sexual conduct. Nor can parents consent for their children for sexual conduct that is statutory rape. It's a crime. So what you're saying is a red herring.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by geekette

Yes, and they're sick people. Children cannot legally consent to marriage or sexual conduct. Nor can parents consent for their children for sexual conduct that is statutory rape. It's a crime. So what you're saying is a red herring.

There is no end to perversion. There is no acceptable forms of perversion and unacceptable forms. It is all unacceptable. I agree with your conclusion in one sense, but in another sense it is not true. I think homosexuals are sick people, too.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Depends who you ask.

In what ways are you being tyrannized?

I've heard the "civil rights" arguments on both sides and I can see both sides' point. The issue here is the rights of homosexual men and women to also participate in state-sponsored marriage.

Being excluded from that, they certainly feel denied that right by the majority, and are arguing their case with the Constitution.

They have the same right to marry that I do. Men can marry women and women can marry men. No rights being violated at all.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Isn't what your describing simply tyranny by the minority?

This isn't civil rights no matter how bad they want to portray it that way.

"Simple tyranny by the minority." I'm old enough to remember the same sort of rhetoric coming out of people who were still smarting about the Supreme Court overturning laws against interracial marriage in 1968.

You personally do not have to accept gay marriage, nor does your church have to perform them. But what this judge is saying is that under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, if the state's going to grant a set of rights to opposite sex couples, then the same rights have to be granted to same-sex couples. The judge was also very clear that religious or moral beliefs are not enough to defeat "strict scrutiny"--there has to be a legitimate state purpose.

As to whether or not a higher court will buy it, I don't know, but that's pretty much what the ruling says.