California Prop. 8 | Federal Judge Rules Prop. 8 Unconstitutional!!!

In totally sad agreement...

Of course we Californians who voted to allow gay marriage just don't count. Or the parts of California who can easily tolerate gay marriage either. Many agreed that they were confused by the ballot measure. It was written that way. As well as all of the propaganda that was spoon fed to voters to vote against it. Never once questioning the case of civil rights.

for what? for bigotry? for hate? or for equality?

true, but there is no legal leg to stand on...at least for the first 2...

As has been pointed out multiple times, majority opinion cannot rightly vote away the civil rights of a minority ... as they have erroneously succeeded in doing in the past with native americans, women, blacks, and now homosexuals.

Technically speaking, a "right" can neither be granted nor taken away by another. A right either exists or it does not and it exists from birth until death. What can be granted and taken away - rightly or wrongly - is the liberty to exercise one's right(s).

In this case, homosexual individuals have and have always had the right to marry whomever they choose, however, thus far, majority opinion has been able to suppress the liberty of homosexuals to exercise that right. More exactly than before, one cannot rightly vote away the liberty of another. One's liberty is preserved, or temporarily or permanently taken away by the rule of law as derived from the supreme law of our land - the U.S. Constitution.

Time and again, amendments to that Constitution have restored freedom to those whose liberties have been wrongly interfered with by majority opinion.

"Rule of the majority" isn't warrant for tyranny against others and tyranny is precisely the nature of bans against homosexual marriage. Majority opinion ought not and will not ultimately win on this issue because that erroneous opinion drives a stake through the heart of civilization and civilized values.

Democracy isn't a sacred cow. It either works because the majority is genuinely sane in its opinions, or it must be dispensed with to preserve sanity in human culture.

The irony in all of this that always gets me is how the majority scream about their civilized right to vote ... in order to enforce a decidedly uncivilized status quo. This inherent contradiction in their minds is reason enough not to trust the opinion of the majority.

It is the fault of the damn Constitution. Protecting the minority from an overly passionate majority. Too bad the majority can't have complete control of the law, then we could still get shit done with slave labor.

Ground Zero Mosque? So the government unfairly ruled that the site was not historical just to piss off people? Where are you going with that?

Don't worry I won't call you a homophobe. You just seem to be someone that wants a different set of rights for brown people, Muslims, and homosexuals.

Driving me crazy how many of these people want to take us back to "jolly olde England or ancient Spain" when to disagree means the gallows or the choppers block. Of course they long for it until it is their head or one of their loved ones, who has lost the favor of the King or Queen.

They keep leaving out that part about religious persecution. Of course you could be chopped up and dismembered for any old reason back than. Here, we have a more perfect union. We made laws to keep the wackos from killing people they just didn't like. That happened here in America before the revolution. Unfortunately, everyday, we learn that many Americans slept through it and are still living in the past. A very dangerous and criminal one at that. When Churches got away with murder. I am grateful that our founding fathers did as much as they felt that they could in the moment to save all of us from that terrible fate.

he's entitled to his own opinion just like the rest of us are. i'm guessing he's staying moderate in order to get re-elected. which he will if history proves true...

I wouldn't bet on it. He's moderate all right. He's between the left and the far left.

I would love it if Obama were a liberal. Unfortunately, HE ISN'T. As of right now, he does not have my vote in 2012 for this reason. You watch too much Fox News or listen to too much Limbaugh or whatever other biased source you call news, John.

He says whatever will get him reelected. He doesn't want to appear too liberal or too conservative. He is a political player. That's all he is. I didn't think that at first. I trusted him. I voted for him. There are two Obamas: one represented by his rhetoric, and the other by his actions. I am very disappointed, but I was naive. I have only been paying attention to politics since about 5 years ago... When I used to watch Fox news and believe in the American Dream.

"The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin

I guess it's what you consider a liberal. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and I never voted for George Bush, but Obama is way too far left for me.

You have a point. It's relative to one's own political orientation I guess, right? I do think that the media portrays Obama as being way more liberal than he actually is though.

Typical Obama statement. I am against same-sex marriage but I believe they should have all civil rights. A contradiction of course. Obama is still waving around his cross. I suppose he has to but we have learned not to trust all that he has to say. I honestly wish the Dems would run someone more liberal but I doubt that they have the wisdom to do so.

This is why, most Progressive voters do not support him. He tosses out bones and ask you to be happy and chew on some. Life doesn't work that way. At least we know he has a good majority of the Republican vote. Those of you who say Obama is not a good Republican are not paying attention.

.

... and I've got five American dollars that you are a homophobe.

Time to go back to school to study U.S. history.

History?

History i.e. civil rights...direct democracy usually = oppressed minority...so the courts step in and you Know...check if the results of the endeavor(direct democracy) are constitutionally sound.

the tenets of your church group will not supersede the US constitution just because you don't have shit to do one Tuesday...

.

Yes, U.S. history.

The same courts that elected Bush over Gore, the same courts that gives a crack junky more time in jail than a coke head, and the same courts that trun their heads when things happen like JFK and Waco. I don't trust the govt to get anything right, because they dont get anything right, I'll take my chances with direct democracy 10times out of 10 vs. crossing my fingers that they get it right.

yet another one who knows nothing about checks and balances.

not to mention U.S. Government.

The majority can vote themselves straight to hell if that's what they wish, however, they will not be allowed to vote others there in their stead or vote others to accompany them against their will.

Barbarian.

Um. Okay, let's start with "homo's" being used in the possessive form instead of the plural. That is just the beginning of the wrongness involved in this post. That part makes me see that you do not pay attention to detail. The rest of it makes me see that you don't pay attention to facts. The last sentence makes me question your point as well as your sanity.

you just suck. period.

Your obsession with mounting and sucking makes me wonder if you have had a homosexual experience. ;)

^^^^ lol.... I've always thought that's the essence of anyone concerned so much with what gay men are doing.

That was great, thanks.

Glad you felt the same way.

Just as with the women's right to vote, just as with the whole Civil Rights movement... it takes time, and it takes a lot of strong-willed humans to not give up on ensuring the rights of ALL living beings. I'll remain optimistic.

pfft you wish. this might get a brief read over by the SCOTUS but they're not going to overturn the equal protection clause.

what? no response? no clever retort? so the SCOTUS is gonna strike down the equal protection act? methinks you are wrong.

distressing yes. I would put it as depressing. Everytime I read the news and hear peoples ignorance and fear mongering... well, lets put it this way, I don't have much hope for humanity. Life is 90% crap 10% joy. It's the 10 percent that blinds me to crap and keeps me and most people going. I think this ruling falls into that 10%.

I was arguing this exact topic for the past 2.5 hours on facebook with my aunt-in-law (is that how it's referred to?)
The state of the world is devastating.
I also just took a class on racism which instilled in us that things like this, facebook, twitter especially are designed especially to distract us from the misery in the world. I gotta say it works for the most part, but why must I be so aware of these injustices?
This argument started when I basically told america to go f- itself and posted the opening video from the daily show last night where a bill to give health care to 9/11 rescue workers was NOT passed! Plus it put taxes on corporations who use off-shore p.o. boxes to avoid taxes from this country.
How!? I don't know what to do/say! I just can't stand this mess.

Forgot about the Mormon money. BONUS!!!!!!! :D

Yes you voted incorrectly. Civil rights issues are not subject to a vote. The constitution states this clearly, it was not the 'idiot' judge. Go ahead and throw in a tirade against socialism to tout your ignorance. A particular economic system has absolutely nothing to do with your right to vote. You have no idea what Socialism even means, do you?

How does gay marriage even come close to remotely affecting your rights? This is what I don’t get, religious conservatives are making all this noise but none of their arguments make any sense without a lot of religious talk, which by the way Christians can’t even agree on, and whatever happened to "no law respecting the establishment of religion" quit trying to establish your religion on everyone else, your religious freedoms are affecting my rights does that mean that we can now vote to make your religion illegal?

Up'd for the thought-provoking question (should provoke thought in those who think that their voting 'rights' were ignored in this case):

"...does that mean that we can now vote to make you religion illegal?"

"your religious freedoms are affecting my rights does that mean that we can now vote to make your religion illegal?"

Oh, this is one of the best things I've read all day. Thank you for that. :)

No, what the majority wants DOESN'T matter if that majority has insanely ignored both the letter and spirit of the American revolution and the U.S. Constitution.

If "liberty" is only for the privileged, there is no genuine liberty for the marginalized OR for the privileged.

So what your saying is that if we just get enough people together to vote for hate then as long as we voted for it its ok? Good then i herby proclaim the movement lets vote to ban right wing nut jobs who not only speak hate but do their best to prostlatize and spread said hate lets just make a law to shut them all up! You said it as long as people want hate then its totally ok right?

You can't vote away civil rights. Plain & simple. You are wrong... deal with it!

"Democracy is not 3 wolves and a lamb deciding dinner."

and 6.4 million voters and their opinion upheld. 6.4 million

Yes, that's precisely what they're arguing. The thing about judging what is "right" or "wrong" or "just" or "unjust" according to majority opinion is the fact that one can easily slip into the minority generally through no fault of one's own. We all know the nature of trends. One day you're trendy - the next you're not.

No, "right" and "wrong", "just" and "unjust" must be judged by rational fact and logical reasoning with an eye to compassion for other life. More times than not, the majority judge right and wrong and just and unjust according to rotten information, extremely poor reasoning and a militant mindset of "get them before they get you".

The majority is most usually insane. For proof, simply ask those who the majority regularly oppresses with its idiotic ideas.

No one's interested in "civil unions". In America, the non-religious, civil partnership conferred by the state is called "marriage". Atheists get state "marriages". The US Code of Law confers rights to "married" people. It has nothing to do with religion. There simply is no such thing as a civil union in this country. If you'd like to change the law so that it refers to "civil unions" for all people and the state only gives and recognizes "civil unions" for all people and marriage becomes just a meaningless term people use to refer to the ceremony, then we can talk about "gay civil unions". Until then, you're just someone proposing segregation and believing himself noble for it.

Yes, it's usually called "marriage" but, technically speaking, every "marriage" is a civil union in that civil authority (government) recognizes the legal union of two people. The problem here is many people are attached to this term "marriage" as though there is only one possible definition to it and regularly as though the term is somehow "sacred".

One can technically "marry" two pieces of wood together with a nail or a screw or glue or what have you. One can marry just about anything to anything else. Call it sacred if you wish ... or not.

Human "marriage" can actually be anything and everything we wish it to be ... if the immature majority keeps its childish nose out of it.

The US is NOT an athiest nation. Our country was founded on Christian Principles like it or leave it.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were agnostic at best. The founding fathers all agreed vehemently about separation of church and state.

Well, the US is not an atheist nation, it is also in no way, shape or form founded on "Christian Principles".

It is a secular nation, founded on Natural Law and Human RIghts- concepts from the Enlightenment.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
--- Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Right that is why Tohmas Jefferson said "I do not find in christianity one redeeming feature." Or Mr. Franklin "Lighthouses are more usefull than churches." Tohmas again here "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." We were not founded on the bible, our forefathers were not devout christians, none of this is true. Maybe instead of following your religion so blindly you should try to find some real facts.

wrong. the founding fathers were mostly Deist.

Stop believing what Glenn Beck tells you because he is a complete moron. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and numerous other "Fathers of our Country" were not Christians, that is why they stipulated separation of Church and State. To protect us all from the spread of religious zealotry that seems to be overtaking our country right now.

Actually, it was founded on the values of enlightenment philosophy which holds rationality and reason in highest esteem and which is profoundly humanist in nature, i.e., "the most liberty for the greatest number".

But thanks for playing.

I don't believe I attributed any of those things to you. My reply to your comment was me laughing about your reference to The Odd Couple which you mentioned.

My other post you're referring to was above yours.

Voted Up

This entire post of yours was one big assertion of your ignorance as facts.

You don't know what homosexuality even IS. You don't understand evolution in the slightest degree, you don't understand psychology, you don't understand childhood development, and you have the blatant hypocrisy to say:

"Do your home work before blabbing out things that concern the very foundation of society"

My god man, learn before you speak.

All you did was repeat drivel that is known to be FALSE by anyone who has ever studied psychology and biology.

I'm married and have children. I do not believe marriage is about children. Many of those who want to ban gay marriage hide behind their children. They are simply people who disapprove of the lifestyle that have children. They hold them up like a shield or banner and claim it will destroy the foundation of the American family. If I boil your response down (set on high for about 24 hours), that is what I"m getting. If marriage was about children, then barren and older couple should not be allowed to marry. People who decide not to have children should be forced to divorce by your logic.

It will be funny as hell if one of your children turns out to be gay and wishes to marry. Maybe by then you will have removed that hair from across your ass and give them your blessing.

BTW: Don't go on about moderation, objectivity with a lengthy "you all suck and I'm so right" post that berates and insults people. That is my shit your standing in. I recognize the smell. Welcome to the cesspool, if you think it's funny, well your drowning in it too.

"I hate to say this but can we try and stop for once being self absorbed, capricious, spoiled, selfishly minded obsessive Westerners and stop to think for a minute at least, giving thought to WHY other people say the things they say."

ROTF! Uh, okay.

voted down.

nice try at a thread break but no dice. we here at current have more tenacity than that.

Love/sex does not always lead to children. Or marriage for that matter? And love/sex does not make people want to stay in bad relationships. Children, do not seem to be a good enough reason for partners not to screw one another over? So this argument falls flat on it's face.

As for reading more books. More than what? I noticed a few, "god" references in there. Either those were a slip of the hand or you still haven't read enough, "good books", in my own honest opinion.

Marriage is a legal contract between two, hopefully, consenting adults who are not doing so under false pretenses or at the barrel of a gun. Those things never turn out good and when you have the odds against you? Why gamble with your life? Many seem to be using marriage as a contract to breed? Maybe one of those books you should read should be a dictionary? Sorry but "breed" is a word and something people do all of the time. Luckily, thanks to modern invention, most of the time it doesn't result in a child. It is one of the more popular reasons why people do get married and often, not at all done in the best interest of the child most of the time. I have a lot of abandoned parents who would like to beg to differ with your sort of logic. Not to mention more than a few abortion clinics that don't seem to hurt for people looking for a way to make things right after something not so serious turned out oh so wrong.

I can't even say, with all of those words that you posted, that it was even a fair post. You can get all lovey/dovey over the concept of your getting married but it doesn't hold true for a good majority of marriages. I could question your own fidelity record but people rarely admit to such things. Lie usually when asked unless it is to a confessor or in a drunken stupor bragging to people who really can care less what a jerk you really are.

So let gay people marry. My gay aunt was a wonderful parent and studies have already proven that they appreciate their children so much better than many heterosexual parents do.( If you question my logic, check out the Foster Care System nearest you). My gay aunt was one of the best moms I ever had. For the sake of our future, allowing gay people full civil rights is the least we can do.

Good post.

it would cut back on the american carbon footprint by a lot, just counting the mormons and catholics...

"We should make a law banning religious people from breeding" i agree with that 100%, Gay people can raise more tolerant accepting children than any religious person can, because acceptance and tolerance are just not in any of the big religions now, they try and say it is, but all their words are outdated and medieval.

"the idea that Conservative Republicans NEED to have Gay Marriage be illegal to prevent them from wanting to partake in it themselves and divorce their loving wife" so true! you should watch a documentary called 'outrage' about all the self loathing in the closet republicans.
I enjoy the idea that the homophobes who harp on about gay sex (like the apostles of the mormon religion) secretly want some anal loving themselves but are too embarassed to admit it.

true conservatives don't give a shit what people do at home. those people are neocons