Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I saw a guy on a TV show that wanted to legally marry his horse.

And the horse can't consent, thus no marriage could take place. End of story.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Sam

Several states (Ohio is one of them) define marriage as one man and one woman.

An amendment to the U.S. constitution has been proposed with similar wording. It did not pass our federal legislature based on the premise that individual states should define marriage, not the federal government.

Yes, and it is for this reason that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was recently struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by 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

Let's see the rest of this context. John Adams wasn't the most "religious" people, and that's why I find this quote ironic.

To suggest a human being can't intellectually interpret the Constitution because they are living in a deviant lifestyle separate of the Constitution is as bigoted a statement as it gets.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

There liberal too!

They are??????

Come on, you guys are throwing out some pretty ridiculous statements.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

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!

Wasn't intending on losing you. Point being, I clarified and narrowed down what "believer" means.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Not following.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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?

Both parties wouldn't be eligible for protection under the law. Marrying a rock, a goldfish or a corpse. Marriage is two parties in contract.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I disagree this is the power of the States to regulate not the federal government.

Agreed. Like Ron Paul, less government involvement the better anyway.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

That's my point. The judge has said California doesn't have the right to regulate "who" is married.

"Who" applying to human beings.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW do we know for a fact the judge was gay? Is so can't that be construed as a conflict of interest?

That's a stretch. Would it be a conflict of interest of the judge was heterosexual? If the judge was religious? If the judge was...?