Prop 8?

Quote:

The whole I-don't-want-my-child-to-learn-about-gay-marriage-in-schools-because-it-violates-my religious-freedom stance will be the fight they try to make, and will lose.

That's an assertion. It might be because they don't want to explain what happens when the happy couple gets to the honeymoon suite and, I would guess. neither does the happy couple.

I don't disagree. But stealing the best words of the others is out of order. It's an attack on language and the literature of the past wherein resides all wisdom.

It's Orwellian in essence. Newspeak.

How much of the average homosexual couple's time is spent in the activities you mention. Do they arrive at once a month after five years? What are their roles the rest of the time? Do they take part in the usual social activities which married couples now do? Does one go to the pub while the other sits watching Big Brother and Desperate Housewives darning socks?

It's not so much that one guy blowing another is undiscussable as that it is more or less irrelevant it being such a trivial event.

"Of course I'm for gay marriage; why shouldn't they have the chance to be as unhappy as everyone else?

The citizen's vote is not irrelevant 9000, but it does have limitations given the other things that the citizens have voted on and the states have ratified.

A successful vote to put in place things like prop8 contradicts other things in our constitution, so what about the people who fought for things like the equal protection clause? Can people vote to put things in place that contradict it?

Your thoughts are appreciated, but ultimately juvenile in their development.

T
K
O

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:

Maine just legalized gay marriage today. That's five. And there are, what, something like another 14 that allow civil unions. You're not toast yet, woiyo, but you're definitely starting to brown around the edges.

Actually, the citizens of Iowa voted to prohibit it, and the liberals demonstrated their respect for democracy by inventing something in the constitution to disenfranchise the citizens.

Oh really? When did the citizens of Iowa vote against marriage equality? I googled the matter and cannot verify your statement. Maybe you're right. Can you provide a link?

Brandon: Have you found anything to substantiate your statement that "the citizens of Iowa voted to prohibit it [i.e., marriage equality]"?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

I guess when you think about it, the second that the first state allowed gay marriage was the second that we knew the tide would ultimately change.

The argument against; the argument that this was about protecting marriage, could never fair against the blatant observation that gay marriage in those states in no way threatened anyone. I suspect that the retreat will be to an argument about public schools.

The whole I-don't-want-my-child-to-learn-about-gay-marriage-in-schools-because-it-violates-my religious-freedom stance will be the fight they try to make, and will lose.

T
K
O

And, according to you, how the citizens vote is irrelevant, and if it disagrees with your position, your side will just arrange for the vote to be anulled.

Where did TKO state that "how the citizens vote is irrelevant"? The point you are missing is that the citizens can vote for anything they want. But, if they vote to enact an unconstitutional law, those persons who are adversely affected by the unconstitutional law have standing to petition the court for redress of grievances.

If the voters enacted a law that provided that all persons named Brandon9000 shall be denied the civil rights that everyone else have, then you may petition the court for redress. After all, our form of government is not a pure democracy--it's a constitutional republic that has built-in checks and balances to protect individuals from the adverse consequences of majoritarian oppression.

Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.

Brandon9000 wrote:

And, according to you, how the citizens vote is irrelevant, and if it disagrees with your position, your side will just arrange for the vote to be anulled.

How did we 'arrange' for the mostly Conservative Iowa SC to annul the 'wishes of the citizens?' In detail, please.

The truth is that Equality is not a Liberal or Conservative idea but a well-understood legal one. When those who are trained in the application of laws take the question of equality up, it is difficult for them to side any other way than with our position. To you, this is going around the 'will of the people.' Tough ****. The people are not allowed to pass laws that self-violate the Constitution, with impunity.

Cycloptichorn

The point is that it isn't unconstitutional. That's just the liberals disrespecting democracy. The law applies equally to everyone. It doesn't say that A shall have this right and B shall not.

I agree, but the Iowa law isn't unconstitutional

and by jimmying the Constitution to erase votes that didn't go your way, you are annulling the wishes of the people to gain what you cannot gain by votes.

Diest TKO wrote:

The citizen's vote is not irrelevant 9000, but it does have limitations given the other things that the citizens have voted on and the states have ratified.

A successful vote to put in place things like prop8 contradicts other things in our constitution, so what about the people who fought for things like the equal protection clause? Can people vote to put things in place that contradict it?

Your thoughts are appreciated, but ultimately juvenile in their development.

T
K
O

What is there in the Constitution that the Iowa vote contradicts? Saying it contradicts something in the Constitution doesn't make it so. The equal protection clause doesn't mean that anyone can do anything he wants. It's just a liberal way of torturing the words into nullifying a fair vote. Quote me the passage the Iowa law contradicts. You cannot, and instead will hide behind insults and other irrelevant evasions.

In regard to marriage, the poll finds 76% of married women keep secrets
from their husbands.

Here's a candidate for that big tent -- as a clown:

Miss USA contestant, Carrie Prejean, whose comments opposing same-sex marriage during last month's Miss USA pageant are blamed for her loosing "the crown" has fulfilled her position as a blond boob in more ways than one. She had breast augmentation surgery just weeks before that competition, Miss California Pageant Co-Director Keith Lewis confirmed. He also said reports that the Miss California pageant helped foot the bill for the operation were true. Looks like the vanity of fake body parts matches perfectly the prejudicial purity of her religious faith that promotes the exclusion pf an entire segment of society the legal use of a simple word in the dictionary. Marriage is just a word but in most state laws, it still includes certain rights that civil unions do not.

Prejean gained nationwide attention over her answer to a question about same-sex marriage. During the 2009 Miss USA pageant, Prejean was asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton whether she believed every U.S. state should legalize same-sex marriage. She responded, "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

In a video blog that he posted to his own website, Hilton blasted Prejean as a "dumb bitch" and called Prejean's answer "the worst in pageant history." He also told ABC News that she lost the crown because of how she answered the question on gay marriage.[10] He stated as well that "There are various other ways she could have answered that question and still stayed true to herself without alienating millions of people."[11] Prejean believes that the opinion that she expressed in the answer cost her the crown.

Hilton served as a judge for the Miss USA 2009 pageant in Las Vegas, Nevada on April 19, 2009.

During the Q&A portion of the contest, Hilton asked the Miss California representative, Carrie Prejean whether she believed every state should legalize same-sex marriage. She responded that she did not. After the pageant Perez Hilton made negative comments about the contestant and told ABC news "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that," leading some to believe that the answer directly had caused her to lose the competition. Prejean stated that Miss California USA officials had pressured her to apologize for her statement and "not talk" about her Christian faith.

During the contest, as part of the contest, judge Perez Hilton asked her if she supported or opposed same-sex marriage. Apparently, she was punished for not giving the only acceptable answer. The contestants are graded on their politics now???