Prop 8?

Cyclops wrote:

Gays are most specifically not treated like everyone else, and once again, it's highly insulting that you would even claim that. Gays are not allowed to marry the people they are in love with. Surely you can agree with me that marriage is supposed to be a relationship based upon love, not on the base needs of biology.
***********************************************

I agree with Cyclops. The Roman Catholic Church agrees with Cyclops. If homosexuals do love each other and if, AS CYCLOPS SAYS, marriage is based on love, NOT ON THE BASE NEEDS OF BIOLOGY, the Catholic church says that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two homosexuals living together as LONG AS THEY ARE CELIBATE IN THEIR MARRIAGE AND REMAIN CELIBATE.

Cyclops said--based onlove and not the base needs of biology!!!

I am indebted to Debra L A W for her definitions:

She wrote:

big.ot [hypocrite, bigot]: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

That is correct.

However, Debra L A W, being a Socialist ideologue, will never admit that the following fall under the definition--obstinately devoted to his/her party, belief or opinion-

l. Move on.org

2. George Soros

3. Rahm Emmanuel

4. Sweet Barney Frank

5. Maureen Dowd

6. Bob Herbert

7. The "Nation"

8. Bill Maher

9. the ACLU

10. Chuckie Schumer

***************************************************************

Of course, Debra L A W will not agree that these are bigots. Why? Because they represent the truth.

Is Barney Frank a pitcher or a catcher?

maybe we should just outlaw marriage altogether

That has been proposed by others, but the great jurist, Richard Posner, warned that any situation which would encourage polygamy would undoubtedly eventually result in the situation in which the richest men would have a stable of the most beautiful women. That would be fine for them but Judge Posner warns that such a situation would result in bloody revolution by the have nots eventually.

Not a good idea!

well we could always do away with the rich too

It's the first rule of marriage that being "in love" after 25 years is ridiculous. Declaring oneself to be "in love" is another matter entirely.

One of his biggest fans was Stendhal. His milieu was closer to our's. Not that that makes any difference of course.

The idea that one might get away with avoiding having to fight for women never entered either of their heads.

You could ask the states who have resisted giving official sanction to homosexual unions.

They might think I suppose that to do so undermines the image they wish to present to the world. Wags might talk about the catchers balls banging back and forth inconveniently or unharmoniously, so to speak. Some politicians might jib at voting approval of that.

And what would literary men do for nose jokes?

"He turn'd his lips to hers, and with his hand
Call'd back the tangles of her wandering hair."

Don Juan.

A short back and sides would put paid to that.

Sure, I could. But instead, I'm asking the posters on this board, all of whom have so far declined to answer.

Cycloptichorn

I have given you the evolution science answer, the poetic answer and the man on the Clapham omnibus's answer ( considerably toned down).

Do not confuse female mutuality with that of men. The Church never has done.

And don't confuse blotting out answers with no answers being provided.

From Forbes Magazine
Abolish The Marriage License
Elisabeth Eaves, 05.29.09, 12:01 AM EDT
Who needs the government to be involved?

Following the California Supreme Court's decision this week to uphold a ban on gay marriage, the U.S. looks headed into a long, resource-sucking legal slog over whether same-sex couples may marry. Here's an idea that could end the debate once and for all, and trim government spending to boot: Get government out of the marriage business altogether.

Currently in all but four states, a gay couple may not walk into city hall and demand the same right granted every day to drunks, madmen and teenagers: a government-licensed marriage. For anyone who believes that citizens should be treated equally under the law, this is a problem.

If states stop marrying people, they stop discriminating. At the same time, social conservatives score a coup: They no longer have to witness same-sex couples getting government approval for use of the word "marriage." (There seems to be an irony here on both sides: Hands-off-our-religion conservatives and stick-it-to-the-man liberals are both obsessed with having the state's OK.)

What about heterosexual marriage, you might ask? Well, the religious faithful could still get married in their houses of worship. Same-sex marriage advocates are not, after all, trying to force churches to expand their definition of marriage. Indeed, the U.S. tolerates all sorts of discriminatory practices in the name of religious freedom: You may pull kids from public schools and send them to a madrassah, ordain only men and not women, or even live in de facto polygamy. (Bans on polygamy are not well-enforced in the corners of Utah and Arizona where it is most practiced.) Americans hold freedom of religion in such regard that if you want to, say, rob banks, you'd do well to consider founding a bank-robbing religion.

As for the rest of us, no one is stopping us from throwing a party to declare undying love. Gay couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades, celebrations that might look familiar to 18th century Britons. Until England's 1753 Marriage Act, a marriage was recognized as legal if both parties had simply declared their consent. Afterward, more hoop-jumping was required, in the form of licenses and public announcements, and the state declared that liaisons outside its new rules were null. One benefit to the gentlemen who passed the law was that no women they might have impregnated following careless promises could now come around demanding child support.

Today, marriage licenses represent a different kind of government self-interest: They are, in effect, a tax. In Minnesota, the state legislature-set price for a marriage license is a rapacious $110. (Less, though, if you undergo "premarital education.")

Abolishing state marriage would raise a number of questions of the who-gets-what-when variety. Throughout much of history, marriage was a business contract, and though we eschew that notion in our romantic times, money is still pretty much what the legal paperwork is about: Who inherits, who gets dental benefits, who gets what when a relationship is dissolved.

These things, though, aren't that hard to work out. We already legally recognize next of kin, and write wills to determine inheritance. It wouldn't be a huge leap to allow every person to declare a benefits-receiving partner of his or her choice--who could be a romantic partner, an elderly relative or an ailing friend,

This sort of arrangement might become, in effect, a one-size-fits-all nationwide civil union status, without the specter of the "marriage" appellation that gets some people's bridal veils in such a twist. We could close marriage licensing offices nationwide and put an end to bruising legal wars. We could put a parasitic army of pre-nuptial and divorce lawyers out of business, though the wedding industry itself would probably survive. It doesn't matter what you call it or what the government says: The desire to mate will find a way.

Elisabeth Eaves is a deputy editor at Forbes, where she writes a weekly column.

Best idea yet on getting government out of the marriage business.

It's been answered repeatedly, but just not the answer you are seeking. It's pretty obvious what you are looking for and unfortunately for you, none of the conservatives here will take your bait.

If you want satisfaction, I'd suggest seeking it elsewhere.

You have not answered the questions that I have asked and neither has any other. All you have done is claimed to answer them in the past.

Well then, link to your answers, sir. I assert that there were none for the questions I asked.

Of course, you could - if you were not embarrassed as to the both the content and the illogical nature of the reasoning behind your fear of gay marriage - restate your answer in 1/10th of the time that it takes for you to find the old one. But you will not do this, just like the other conservatives in this thread won't do this.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, no, cjhsa. That's not true. Are you saying that Cyclo is the catcher? I don't think so.

McGentrix: One definition of a fanatic is a person, who, when defeated, redoubles his efforts. Now, it is clear that Cyclops, who comes from one of the most liberal areas in the USA, gives arguments which, when followed to their logical extremes, lead to the acceptance of beastiality, pederasty, polygamy, and complete license in sexual matters.

But Cyclops and his cohorts are losing. That is a fact.

Note the article below:

State's Top Court Backs Proposition 8.

Gay rights supporters rally in front of San Francisco City Hall on Tuesday.
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court upheld the state's gay-marriage ban in a ruling Tuesday that ignited protests and was likely to fuel new efforts by gay-rights activists to legalize same-sex weddings.

At the same time, the court validated the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before Proposition 8 was passed. These marriages will continue to be recognized by other states that have legalized same-sex marriage. But if a legally wed gay couple from other states move to California, their marriage wouldn't be recognized, legal analysts say.

The court ruled 6 to 1 that it couldn't overturn the Proposition 8 initiative banning gay marriages -- approved by California voters in November -- because the measure didn't illegally revise the state's constitution, as opponents had charged. Instead, the court concluded the ballot measure amended the state constitution in a way permitted under California's initiative system, which gives voters broad powers.


California's Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban. On Sunday, thousands of Bay Area residents attended church service as they awaited the court's decision.
By preserving the married status of the 18,000 same-sex weddings without restoring the legality of gay marriages, the court left itself open to legal challenge, some analysts said. The court interpreted those marriages as legal because they were entered in good faith before California's constitution was amended, said Linda McClain, a law professor at Boston University. In addition, Proposition 8 didn't specify pre-existing gay marriages should be invalidated, she said.

The ruling is likely to have national implications. For gay-marriage opponents, it's a "shot in the arm," said Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, an arm of Colorado-based conservative group Focus on the Family. He said the boost comes at a critical time for the anti-gay-marriage movement, because several other states have legalized same-sex marriage recently, including Vermont, Maine and Connecticut.

Mr. Hausknecht said traditional-marriage advocates would use the California decision "to communicate to people all around the country that at the end of the day, citizens do still control how they're governed."

The decision also is a potential new rallying call by gay-marriage activists. Thousands of people are expected to meet Saturday in Fresno, Calif., to kick off efforts to put a new initiative on the ballot to overturn Proposition 8 and start work on having same-sex marriages recognized at the federal level.

"Now, the burden is back on us to reach out to our neighbors and the voters of California," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, at a press conference Tuesday at San Francisco City Hall.

Several gay-rights groups said they would try to qualify a ballot measure supporting gay marriage for the 2010 general election.

Opponents of same-sex marriage who were at the courthouse cheered the decision. "It's not a 100% victory, but it's a significant step," said 26-year-old Vladimir Musorivschi, a college student in Sacramento.

Pay attention to this one:


Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban
Thursday, May 28 02:05 am

Steve Gorman Print Story Two lawyers who squared off in the legal battle over the 2000 U.S. presidential election teamed up on Wednesday to challenge California's gay marriage ban in a move that, if successful, would allow same-sex couples to wed anywhere in the United States. Skip related content
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two same-sex California couples barred from marrying under the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8, puts them at odds with gay rights advocates who see a federal court challenge as too risky and fear a loss in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case that put George W. Bush in the White House, said that gay people who cannot marry were turned into second-class citizens by Proposition 8 in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Olson represented Bush and Boies represented Vice President Al Gore in the case that settled the disputed 2000 election.

If this lawsuit prevails, it would establish the right of gay couples to marry as the law of the land, upending laws in many U.S. states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Five of the 50 U.S. states have legalized gay marriage. Opponents, including many religious conservatives, see gay marriage as a threat to the "traditional family."

California's Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Proposition 8, which defines marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman, as a valid amendment to the state's constitution.

The same court last May struck down a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage, opening the way for an estimated 18,000 gay couples to wed before the proposition was approved by California voters in November.

'FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT'

"This case is about equal rights guaranteed every American under the United States Constitution," Olson, who served as U.S. solicitor general under Bush, said in Los Angeles.

"For too long, gay men and lesbians who seek stable, committed, loving relationships within the institution of marriage have been denied that fundamental right that the rest of us freely enjoy."

The lawsuit was brought on Friday before the California high court ruling. On Wednesday, the lawyers filed a request for a federal court order to lift the ban and allow same-sex marriages to continue until the case is resolved.

Andrew Pugno, one of the lawyers who successfully defended Proposition 8 in state court, said the will of the voters was under attack. "This new federal lawsuit, brought by a pair of prominent but socially liberal lawyers, has very little chance of succeeding," he said.

Many conservatives oppose gay marriage while many liberals support it. Boies and Olson cast the debate in nonpartisan terms.

"We come from different parts of the political spectrum. But I think Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, all recognise the importance of equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution," Boies said. "This is a civil rights issue. A big one."

But gay rights activists are wary.

"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal Marriage Project who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.

Her organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement that "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage

Ted Olson, Solicitor General under Bush is taking this case?

Interesting! Note:

Former solicitor general and ultraconservative lawyer Ted Olson is a rock star of the US Supreme Court bar. He’s argued more than 50 cases before the high court during his career and won more than three-fourths of them. So on Wednesday, when he signed on to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, he looked like the great white hope for a cause that’s had only mixed success in the nation’s courts. If anyone could prevail in this case, Olson could. So gay rights groups must be thrilled that he’s thrown his significant legal weight and conservative bona fides behind their cause, right? But they’re not"not at all.

The country’s major legal groups defending gay rights, including the ACLU and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, don’t think Olson is doing them much of a favor. They are upset about the lawsuit, in large part because they think it will fail. A loss could be a major setback not just to the gay marriage movement but to other established gay rights governing adoption and foster care, employment discrimination, and other matters. Pushing the case to the Supreme Court, they contend, could do serious harm.