Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yes, blame the judges for applying the laws our forefathers made years ago. That definetely makes alot of sense.

Actually I think some would argue against that, that he was applying our laws. They would argue he was applying HIS interpretation of our laws

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If an animal does NOT have civil rights, then anyone should be able to marry a goat just as much as white people could force slavery on a black person who did not have civil rights or protections under the law

Actually, an animal doesn't even have basic human rights, let alone the civil rights granted as a citizen of a state.

The rest of what you said I didn't follow.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually I think some would argue against that, that he was applying our laws. They would argue he was applying HIS interpretation of our laws

He cited the Equal Protection clause -- so technically, he applied the old law to a contemporary issue. No re-interpretation going on.

[Hoovie]

Homosexuals cannot adequately interpret the constitution for Christians.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That so?

Know who the Log Cabin Republicans are?

Not good logic there.

There liberal too!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Interesting. Well, at least that issue won't rule you out for voting for Pelosi hehe

So a Jewish man wouldn't get your vote? Does Mormon count as a believer? What about Catholic? Presbytarian? Methodist? Pentecostal?

And if they are a believer, how serious do they have to be to get your vote? How will you know?

I find Libertarians to be the most diverse group: many religious, irreligious all under same banner.

You lost me. Are Jews and Mormons atheists? Catholic? Presbytarian? Methodist? Pentecostal?

How will I know my pastor is a believer? Confession is a wonderful thing!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Actually, an animal doesn't even have basic human rights, let alone the civil rights granted as a citizen of a state.

The rest of what you said I didn't follow.

That is my point. Animals have NO rights for someone to say a man can't forcibly marry his goat.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't care what his orientation is making this an equal protection claim is opening the door to all kinds of nonsense. Oh you wanna marry two men? Go for it. You wanna marry two goats...equal protection. Equal protection...what a joke.

Technically, the goats don't have the same standing before the court as two human beings. A better analogy perhaps might be two first cousins or a brother and sister couple seeking a marriage license. Perhaps bigamists as well.

States have historically made exclusions to marriage licenses. There have been examples of such statutes that were wrong - inter-racial marriage prohibitions for example.

But "gay marriage" doesn't equate nor is it exemplary of inter-racial marriage. Inter-racial marriages were banned because of racist notions about the children of such unions. "Gay marriage" produces no children so the "racial" and discriminatory complaints don't even apply.

States have the right to control how children are "bred." It's an uncomfortable topic - but it is important. As a society we have stated that no marriage unions can exist between brother and sister and other closely related individuals because of the dangers of inbreeding. That is the basis of all marriage laws.

Gays do not represent anything even remotely related to "inbreeding" as they are not even breeding at all. Therefore, they have no standing (IMHO) in the marriage debate.

If a couple of bachelor gentlemen want to share housing to save expenses then it's probably not a whole lot of my business as long as they keep their lawns up. From my experience, these types tend to have fantastic lawns and gardens. So, hook up as you please, just don't come before the county clerk unless you have an issue involving human breeding.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That so?

Know who the Log Cabin Republicans are?

Not good logic there.

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

There liberal too!

Where liberal too?

The log cabin guys (and gals) tend to be very conservative on fiscal issues and (obviously) liberal on social issues. I wish that they would become more Libertarian on the social issues, however.

Social Liberals tend to do the same thing they accuse "The Right" of doing - legislating one version of "morality."

As far as these matters (sexual "orientation" and expression) do not infringe upon the rights of the rest of us and stay away from the obviously illegal types of behavior, they ought to be left alone.

I wish desperately that most of this stuff was just none of my business.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Socialite

How do you think the Plaintiff's attorneys and/or the judge would response to that?

The two goats analogy is simple, since they don't have even basic human rights, nor would they ever request to be married

However, the polygamy argument certainly should get fired up again over this.

Not the goats, the man. If a man wants to marry two goats, how do you argue against it under this ruling? Equal protection, what right do you have defining marriage as between two people?