"Buuutttt mmmooooommmmm! I don't wanna marry a gay person!"

Nice one subby, I snarked.

Anybody else notice the group doing this is based in AZ? Not very big on states rights, this conservative legal group, are they.

The "Moral Minority" tried this in MA, too... didn't work out too well for them.

Geez. First the mandatory abortions, now the mandatory gay marriage. When does the madness end???

Also relevant:



People like the asshats in TFA make me want to ban religion.

xanadian: Also relevant:



People like the asshats in TFA make me want to ban religion.

mofroe: xanadian: Also relevant:



People like the asshats in TFA make me want to ban religion.

so so awesome

mofroe: People like the asshats in TFA make me want to ban religion.

If we outlaw religion, only outlaws will have religion.

Skleenar: If we outlaw religion, only outlaws will have religion.

That was xanadian's comment, but I chortled

mofroe: http://i100.photobucket.com/

...nor chocolate filled

Pocket Ninja: Geez. First the mandatory abortions, now the mandatory gay marriage. When does the madness end???

Mandatory gay abortions.

The court should issue a stay to allow the voters to decide the issue. In November, Californians will vote on a constitutional amendment that declares "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If that passes, it would invalidate all same-sex marriages in the state.

Can't Jesus just come down and smite all the gays (since he hates them so much) and make life easier for his compassionate followers ?

mofroe: That was xanadian's comment,

Yeah, but it was your image that prompted it, so I thought I would give props.

Skleenar: mofroe: That was xanadian's comment,

Yeah, but it was your image that prompted it, so I thought I would give props.

Green arrows for some, miniature American flags for others

Pocket Ninja: Geez. First the mandatory abortions, now the mandatory gay marriage. When does the madness end???

When every child refuses to say the pledge of allegiance while throwing rocks at Christians.

Hello Internet!!

How is everyone today? I'm good, I have a three day weekend, and the weather here in sunny Massachusetts is supposed to be in the mid to high seventies!

Whats that you ask? Where are the boils and blinding torment? Where are the plagues and locusts? Haven't the queers been marrying for FIVE YEARS now(and ruining the soil)??

Yes. And yet Somerville, Massachusetts is still having the state's largest Memorial Day Parade (this year bigger than ever!!) on a beautiful 75+ degree day.

The sky hasn't fallen, the heavens haven't opened, and the Old North Church where Paul Revere hung one lantern has not been forced to perform any weddings- gay or straight- that they didn't want to.

mofroe: Green arrows for some, miniature American flags for others



***steeples tentacles*** "Exactly"

what_now: The sky hasn't fallen, the heavens haven't opened, and the Old North Church where Paul Revere hung one lantern has not been forced to perform any weddings- gay or straight- that they didn't want to.

Are you still married?

SkinnyHead: The court should issue a stay to allow the voters to decide the issue.

Normally called "Tyranny of the Majority" in most free places. The founders of the United States really tried to avoid that sort of thing.

SkinnyHead: The court should issue a stay to allow the voters to decide the issue. In November, Californians will vote on a constitutional amendment that declares "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If that passes, it would invalidate all same-sex marriages in the state.

Asking people to vote on this issue is like asking the voters in 1960's Alabama to vote on integrating the schools. Sometimes the court has to look at this stuff with an objective perspective and protect the rights of all Americans. These moral crusaders don't have the right to be oppressive douches no matter how much they think Jesus said they could.

Skleenar: Are you still married?

I've never been married. I've thought about it recently, but haven't done it.

/Vegas baby!

what_now: Hello Internet!!

How is everyone today? I'm good, I have a three day weekend, and the weather here in sunny Massachusetts is supposed to be in the mid to high seventies!

Whats that you ask? Where are the boils and blinding torment? Where are the plagues and locusts? Haven't the queers been marrying for FIVE YEARS now(and ruining the soil)??

Yes. And yet Somerville, Massachusetts is still having the state's largest Memorial Day Parade (this year bigger than ever!!) on a beautiful 75+ degree day.

The sky hasn't fallen, the heavens haven't opened, and the Old North Church where Paul Revere hung one lantern has not been forced to perform any weddings- gay or straight- that they didn't want to.

I have a friend who is a 1st Lieutenant in the Canadian Army. He had two Sergeants under his command get married the day after they lifted he ban up there. According to him only one person really cared and it was a really freaking old guy about to retire. Their unit didn't collapse and last time I checked Canada was still a functioning country.

what_now: I've never been married. I've thought about it recently, but haven't done it.

It was the gay option that kept you from this cherished institution, right?

See???!?!?!

what_now: I've never been married. I've thought about it recently, but haven't done it.

Don't do it. It's overrated.

Skleenar: what_now: I've never been married. I've thought about it recently, but haven't done it.

It was the gay option that kept you from this cherished institution, right?

See???!?!?!

No, it was the lack of a quality parter. Now that I have one, it's a consideration. But nice try.

Gwendolyn: I have a friend who is a 1st Lieutenant in the Canadian Army. He had two Sergeants under his command get married the day after they lifted he ban up there. According to him only one person really cared and it was a really freaking old guy about to retire.

BF knows some gay Marines. As he puts it, "No one cares, as long as they can shoot straight"

spqr_ca: Normally called "Tyranny of the Majority" in most free places. The founders of the United States really tried to avoid that sort of thing.

Not to argue for the devil here, but just because something has a name, doesn't mean it is necessarily a valid argument or a real thing.

See "Bush Derangement Syndrome"

Gwendolyn: Asking people to vote on this issue is like asking the voters in 1960's Alabama to vote on integrating the schools.

I have to disagree with this analogy.

what_now: No, it was the lack of a quality parter.

So, what you are saying is that this new law actually increased your chances of marriage?

[exploding head gif]

KaponoFor3: I have to disagree with this analogy.

Good point.

In this case, the bigots aren't geographically concentrated in the Southern States.

Gwendolyn: These moral crusaders don't have the right to be oppressive douches no matter how much they think Jesus said they could.

They, like all other US citizens, have a right for their voices to be heard and to attempt to change laws they disagree with. The funny part is that they aren't trying to say that homosexual couples can't have any of the underlying rights associated with marriage, but instead that they merely do not want a same-sex relationship to be recognized as "marriage". Civil unions? Fine with them.

There's definitely a religious element. I'd be happy if the gov't got out of the "marriage" business altogether and decided to recognize civil unions for any two individuals who choose to enter one and treat it as any other contract between two consenting adults.

Skleenar: In this case, the bigots aren't geographically concentrated in the Southern States.

My objection was more along the lines of "no way California voters hate teh gheys the same way that Alabama voters hated blacks"

Not with San Francisco and Los Angeles in the state. No way.

Skleenar: Not to argue for the devil here, but just because something has a name, doesn't mean it is necessarily a valid argument or a real thing.

Not that you refuted it or anything... Having the rights of a minority decided by popular vote is tyranny of majority. Rights are not a popularity contest and that's what a vote on this would be.

Skleenar: what_now: No, it was the lack of a quality parter.

So, what you are saying is that this new law actually increased your chances of marriage?

[exploding head gif]

What I'm saying is this new law has nothing whatsoever to do with my life. And unless you are a homosexual, it has nothing whatsoever to do with YOUR life.

In 2003, when I was 24, I wasn't ready to get gay or straight married. I'm still not, but I'm getting closer.

SkinnyHead: The court should issue a stay to allow the voters to decide the issue. In November, Californians will vote on a constitutional amendment that declares "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If that passes, it would invalidate all same-sex marriages in the state.

Yup, that whole separate but equal thing again.
We see how well that worked out the last time.

Is this not essentially the same argument they used against interracial marriage?

Should they also have a vote to amend the state constitution to ban those also?



Do you favor teaching the "controversy" about the homosexual agenda?

Those damned "activist" judges are at it again. You know correctly interpreting the law and everything.

It seems after all that money you spent to obtain that GED in law you would have learned that the government is to remain natural in regards to religion.

Weather that be attempting to teach creation mythology in science class or imposing religious views on marriage on the entire population.

spqr_ca: Rights are not a popularity contest and that's what a vote on this would be.

Actually, this is incorrect. The California Supreme Court, in its decision, recognized that same sex couples have almost all of the same rights in civil unions as heterosexual couples have in "marriage". They didn't decide the cases based on those grounds -- i.e., the RIGHTS between the two classifications -- but instead decided it upon the grounds that failing to call a same-sex couple's relationship "marriage" violated their fundamental right to marry. It wasn't the greatest example of legal reasoning and I wish they instead made the decision based on the underlying rights differences between the groups instead of the language used to characterize the different relationships.

what_now: In 2003, when I was 24, I wasn't ready to get gay or straight married. I'm still not, but I'm getting closer

C'mon gay marriage honeymoon pics...

spqr_ca: Normally called "Tyranny of the Majority" in most free places. The founders of the United States really tried to avoid that sort of thing.

It's normally called democracy. In California, the voters can amend their state constitution by a simple majority.

If supporters of same-sex marriage think that a state ban on same sex marriage violates the US Constitution, they can go to the US Supreme Court. But as it now stands, binding US Supreme Court authority holds that a state ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the 14th Amendment.

KaponoFor3: The California Supreme Court, in its decision, recognized that same sex couples have almost all of the same rights in civil unions as heterosexual couples have in "marriage".

I bolded the important part of your statement. That would be the point.

SkinnyHead: It's normally called democracy. In California, the voters can amend their state constitution by a simple majority.

Look up the term "tyranny of the majority" and you'll quickly discover that it is about democracies in which simple majority permits abuse or removal of minority rights. If you thought you were refuting the term, think again.

SkinnyHead: If supporters of same-sex marriage think that a state ban on same sex marriage violates the US Constitution, they can go to the US Supreme Court. But as it now stands, binding US Supreme Court authority holds that a state ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the 14th Amendment.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the fact the founders were keenly aware of the risks involved in majority rule in a democratic society.

spqr_ca: I bolded the important part of your statement. That would be the point

I agree, and I wish that's what the California Supreme Court based their decision on -- but it's not. In fact, the Court called the difference in rights something like "relatively minor and insignificant" (don't quote me, don't have the decision in front of me). I remember it was in a footnote within the first 20 pages.

If they did decide it on the relatively minor and insignificant differences, I wouldn't continually be seen in these threads criticizing their legal reasoning.

Gwendolyn: Asking people to vote on this issue is like asking the voters in 1960's Alabama to vote on integrating the schools. Sometimes the court has to look at this stuff with an objective perspective and protect the rights of all Americans. These moral crusaders don't have the right to be oppressive douches no matter how much they think Jesus said they could.

However in this case the California Supreme Court was making their decision based upon the California constitution. If the ban on homosexual marriage was included in the California constitution it would take a Federal court to rule that the California constitution violated the Federal constitution.

KaponoFor3: I wouldn't continually be seen in these threads criticizing their legal reasoning

I don't speak lawyer, but I HAVE seen you biatching about this since the original 942 breaking news threads, so I assume it's important.

Yay consistency!!

SkinnyHead: spqr_ca: Normally called "Tyranny of the Majority" in most free places. The founders of the United States really tried to avoid that sort of thing.

It's normally called democracy. In California, the voters can amend their state constitution by a simple majority.

You should really brush up on your Constitutional history. Read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, it's one of the major works that influenced out founding fathers. Hobbes and Rousseau had influence too but Hobbes had his tongue too far up the King's ass for my liking. Hume is pretty good too.

shiat, I hit enter too fast. to continue: Democracy was never supposed to be majority rules and fark everyone else.

Gwendolyn: Read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, it's one of the major works that influenced out founding fathers.

It was that very work that caused me to read and write extensively about Natural Law and its role in the mindset of the founding fathers.

what_now: I don't speak lawyer, but I HAVE seen you biatching about this since the original 942 breaking news threads, so I assume it's important.

It is, in my legal opinion. Poor legal reasoning although I ultimately agree with the result. But my concern is that this decision is just going to give the religious right FAR more ammunition in their "homosexual mafia has to go to the courts to try to get recognition because they can't convince the voters" argument. If it were decided on a rights basis, that's one thing. But here, the Court basically based its decision on the fact that a same-sex couple is "entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage."

That's basically the Court saying "you must socially accept, respect, and give dignity to the same-sex relationship." That's not gonna fly with people with religious leanings and they are going to use this decision as further evidence of how the government is attempting to tell them how they are and are not allowed to view others. They are allowed to have their opinion on the issue of homosexuality and no court decision is going to change that for them.

lexnaturalis: Gwendolyn: Read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, it's one of the major works that influenced out founding fathers.

It was that very work that caused me to read and write extensively about Natural Law and its role in the mindset of the founding fathers.

I'm with Hume on Natural Law. Joining together as a democratic society is beneficial to everyone but there wasn't ever a time we were wandering about in the natural state. We were always in societies.