Prop 8?

Sorry I do not agree.

Once more there is zero reason for the state to license any class of private sexual relationships with zero chance of producing childen within those relationships

What the hell do you think is the reason we have builded such a complexed web of laws and customs around marriages in the first place?

And it is a miscarry of justice to tell the rest of the society that in order to make gays feel better about themselves we need to lied and bring them into a legal framework never design to deal with that class of persons.

We have no stake in the length or stablity of any homosexaul relationship and we have no right to take resources and hand them over to gay couples from everyone else without such reasons.

The government does not prevent gays from marrying people from the opposite sex, and the law applies to them just as it does for straights. We BOTH have to marry someone from the opposite sex. So it isn't discrimination because as you said earlier under general applicability, the rule applies to both straights and gays.

What if my choice for a partner were my sister or a 10 year old? Then I guess the government would have to get involved and I can use the same argument for a ban on gay marriage.

Now if your intellect can't grasp that very simple point, then why don't you go back to san francisco and bomb some more ludes.

I obviously KNOW that my religious beliefs are relevant. Now you are trying to prevent my opinions from affecting my decisions.

Whose the crazy person now???

Yeah, crazy churches. You have been calling christians crazy, so why can't I call you people crazy. Hypocrite!

Oh, and about the separation of church and state, which you can't even understand the context in which Jefferson was explaining it. I highly suggest you try reading the danbury baptist letters, or any historic document where you'll see that their religious beliefs were relevant and played a huge role in creating our constitution.

You remember God, don't you? He's the guy they keep talking about.

They also called him creator, inventor, master, etc. I guess all the founding fathers were violating the 1st amendment.

Since you obviously didn't read the danbury baptist letters, let me remind you in case you have just been ignoring this huge part. When Jefferson discussed separation of church in state, he said it applies to opinions, not actions.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I don't think it's the reading part you have a problem with, just the interpretation.

Do you know what an opinion is? It's my opinion that if a church marries a gay couple, they are crazy because that is something God and Jesus would have a problem with, so it doesn't make any sense.

Also, you are crazy. And when you are a hypocrite, you shouldn't be calling other people hypocrites.

But really, I love talking about this with you because you sound so smart. I really feel like you are helping your side.

You get an F for legal history and precedent. Debra and others already pointed out that this argument is not supported by the Supreme Court (Loving v Virginia).

You lost this argument before you even touched the keyboard.

[Some activists believe that the Loving ruling will eventually aid the marriage equality movement for same-sex partnerships, if courts allow the Equal Protection Clause to be used. F.C. Decoste states, "If the only arguments against same sex marriage are sectarian, then opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti miscegenation laws". These activists maintain that miscegenation laws are to interracial marriage, as sodomy laws are to homosexual rights and that sodomy laws were enacted in order to maintain traditional sex roles that have become part of American society. Opponents point out that the United States Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Nelson, decided just a few years after the Loving decision, summarily affirmed that traditional marriage laws do not violate the Constitution of the United States.

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court, which commented on same-sex marriage.[9] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“ Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
”

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries " at first by a few people, and later by many more " as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[10] ”

Similarly the concurring opinion in the same case stated that:

“ Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings"a white man and a black woman"had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment"to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)"a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[10]

Although the impact of Bush's judicial appointments is most often noticed at the Supreme Court, it has played out much more frequently and more importantly here and in the nation's 12 other appellate courts, where his appointees and their liberal counterparts are waging often-bitter ideological battles. After Bush's eight years in office, Republican-appointed majorities firmly control the outcomes in 10 of these courts, compared with seven after President Bill Clinton's tenure. They also now share equal representation with Democratic appointees on two additional courts

it appears as thought you would like secular humanism to be the religion of the US. That is, afterall, a religion.

Peloza's complaint is not entirely consistent. In some places he seems to advance the patently frivolous claim that it is unconstitutional for the school district to require him to teach, as a valid scientific theory, that higher life forms evolved from lower ones. At other times he claims the district is forcing him to teach evolution as fact. Although possibly dogmatic or even wrong, such a requirement would not transgress the establishment clause if "evolution" simply means that higher life forms evolved from lower ones.

Peloza uses the words "evolution" and "evolutionism" interchangeably in the complaint. This is not wrong or imprecise for, indeed, they are synonyms.(3) Adding "ism" does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose "evolution" into a religion. "Evolution" and "evolutionism" define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme).

On a motion to dismiss we are required to read the complaint charitably, to take all well-pleaded facts as true, and to assume that all general allegations embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them. Lujan V. Nat'l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3189, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Abmmson V. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir.1990). Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the school district's actions establish a state-supported religion of evolutionism, or more generally of "secular humanism." See Complaint at 24, 20. According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of the universe:" evolutionism, or creationism. Id. at 2. Thus, the school district, in teaching evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported "religion."

We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion(4) and the clear weight of the case law(5) are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards V. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act").

Peloza would have us accept his definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism" and impose his definition on the school district as its own, a definition that cannot be found in the dictionary, in the Supreme Court cases, or anywhere in the common understanding of the words. Only if we define "evolution" and "evolutionism" as does Peloza as a concept that embraces the belief that the universe came into existence without a Creator might he make out a claim. This we need not do. To say red is green or black is white does not make it so. Nor need we for the purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition of "evolution." Nowhere does Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests that the school district accepts anything other than the common definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism." It simply required him as a biology teacher in the public schools of California to teach "evolution." Peloza nowhere says it required more.

"Quote: "The basic right of man that is talked about about was deemed so for a reason...procreation, the survival of the species."
False. We were creating "a more perfect union." Nothing about survival of the species. That's not what the constitution is about. Your imagination is out of control."

I'm sorry, but you are taking only part of quotes again to suit your purposes. For anyone who is interested, here is what the Loving v. Virginia case says..."Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

This case makes ZERO mentions of same sex marriage. Yet, you keep referring to it as the case that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that same sex marriage should be legal because marriage was deemed a "fundamental right." Now before you start blasting me for the fact that my quote starts below what you have said about marriage. However, my point is that you said that my statement about marriage being a "fundamental right" for the purpose of procreation was false. I'm pointing out the error of that assumption. So, no, my imagination is not out of control. I've reported on what the case said.

You can't apply Loving vs. Virginia to gay marriage because that deals with race, not sexual orientation, something that you DO have a little control over, and something that doesn't result in procreation which is the point of marriage. You get an F in common sense, and nice try with loving vs. virginia, but if you look at the court's arguments, they pretty much destroy your case.

We don't breed with 10 year olds and family members because that is a crime. The point of marriage isn't to knock up anything with a vagina, but one of the key points to marriage is procreation, something gays can't do.

What mythology are you talking about? The bible is full of historical events that actually occured, any historian can tell you that.

Sounds like you are part of the flat earth society that just won't recognize truth when confronted with it.

And where is forced child marriage and incestuous marriage in the bible, where God is saying this is how we should live our lives?

You aren't tolerant at all. Like calling religion mythology.

What a disrespectful perspn you are. If not for religious people, this country wouldn't exist, and nor would the constitution.

This country that you act like you love so much is based on religion. The laws you follow are based on religion. (according to john adams, james madison and a few other people more important than you.)

You can't call a government secular when Thomas jefferson, the athiest himself attended church in the US capital building.

Nor can you call it secular when you read our most precious documents where God is invoked in pretty much every line.

We aren't a secular nation! We just don't force opinions on people, that's all.

...
Those sound like endorsements of christianity to me.

So our founding fathers are allowing mythology to run the country I guess. What a bunch of loons, huh? They make no sense, and obviously are dumb because they follow mythology, so why follow our laws?

You were arguing my point on the danbury baptist letters. You just read it in reverse. The powers of government are allowed to affect our actions, not our opinions. Try reading that again, and stop calling people uneducated when you can't even read correctly.

Let me put it plainly. The separation applies to opinions only, not actions. The power of government applies to actions only, not opinions. DO YOU GET IT. THEY ARE SAYING THE SAME THING!!!

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Anyways, you made my point. Prop 8 isn't affecting people's opinions, that's what YOU are trying to do.

Prop 8 is affecting actions, which Jefferson said, the government has legitimate powers to affect. It is opinions that Jefferson said is not the business of the government.

Damn it you are not as smart as you think. You are so like obama. You think you are smart, but really, you aren't. You are a real elitist snob.

You get bored talking to me, well, then why do you go off on these long rants?