California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Well Cyclo--I raised at least three questions.

1--That one single judge, who it has been said is a homosexual, not by me, can overturn a democratic vote which was well publicised. And a judge seeming to me to garner power over the ultimate jury is hardly a surprise either. And one who likes publicity and being headline news fulfills such ridiculous ambitions by his own decision. That's three reasons for him being partial. And each single one a powerful motive.

2- That the language is being denuded of meaning in the sense that the whole constellation of words, phrases and jests surrounding the married state are involved in this radical alteration in the meaning of the word "marriage" just as has happened with the word "gay". I gave examples and I quoted Orwell.
One can no longer sing along with heterosexual integrity to Kalman's Gay Hussars and even those beautiful Sari Viennese waltzes would be a laughing matter if performed by two eyebrow tweezed chaps in tight trousers. The last stage of the Gay Gordon's is where the partners polka romp round the room with whoever they are with when the music stops.

The mind boggles just dipping a toe into the water of that constellation being rendered ambiguous. It's stupifying. Where are America's English Literature teachers?

3- That heterosexual married couples have a right to the particular distinguishing title "married" and do not want it associated with homosexual activities.

And, presumably, voted to say so. That they feel it demeans them which lowers their self-esteem and thus harms them.

We are in that zone which Shakespeare draws attention to wherin lies have an infinite range of expression and truth is inexpressible. Cordelia in Act I Scene I of King Lear.

I submit, your reverences and worships, that the assertion that there is no harm done is false and therefore the argument that proponents of Prop 8 have no standing in an appeal is also false.

1--That one single judge, who it has been said is a homosexual, not by me, can overturn a democratic vote which was well publicised. And a judge seeming to me to garner power over the ultimate jury is hardly a surprise either. And one who likes publicity and being headline news fulfills such ridiculous ambitions by his own decision. That's three reasons for him being partial. And each single one a powerful motive.

That heterosexual married couples have a right to the particular distinguishing title "married" and do not want it associated with homosexual activities. And, presumably, voted to say so. That they feel it demeans them which lowers their self-esteem and thus harms them.

None of those matter in the slightest; they don't show how anyone was harmed by allowing gays to marry,

Aw, are we hurting their poor widdle Feewings? I wouldn't want that to happen! Rolling Eyes They'll get over it.

Quote:

None of those matter in the slightest; they don't show how anyone was harmed by allowing gays to marry,

The argument is about the word "marry" Cyclo. Your assertion is fatuous. I set out to show harm. To democracy, to the language and to heterosexual couples. You have not contradicted my arguments--you have blurted.

Quote:

Aw, are we hurting their poor widdle Feewings? I wouldn't want that to happen! Rolling Eyes They'll get over it.

What about the feelings of others when certain words are used to refer to them?

And that they'll get over it is the precise point. Yes they will and great swathes of literature and folk-lore will be demolished.

It is me who is thinking of the situation when they've got over it. You're flavour of the month. What will they do when it is normal to draw attention to themselves. They did look a bit full frontal exhibitionist in the Gay Pride demo in Liverpool last week and on CBS News last night kissing and snogging for the cameras.

It's too late to worry about things like your post. You have obviously got over using English properly and assume everybody else has.

. If you disqualify for homosexuality then you also have to disqualify for heterosexuality.

Who does that leave you with for a judge spendi?

2. judges rule on the law. They have the power based on the Constitution to do so. Your argument is moot since it ignores the facts of what a judge does.

3. You allegation the he likes publicity is unfounded. He didn't chose the case nor can you show a record of the judge trying to get in the news.

They continue to make claims they cannot prove.

How can one gay couple's marriage in California harm somebody living in, say, England?

So if a majority of same-race couples didn't want to be associated with interracial activities, and if they felt that allowing interracial marriage demeans them, lowers their self-esteem and thus harms them, then interracial marriage should be illegal?

I agree the heterosexual judge does also but I submit that the latter is not as politicised about the matter. Not as likely to be militant.

The celibate of course. (Get out of that.)

And you have evaded my point about the legal profession garnering power to itself. Do you wish to be ruled by judges.

Come on mate. Pull the other one it has bells on. They're celebrity mad. He could end up with a career.

What caused the judge to set aside his stay? What had changed?

There is a hidden motive under every pebble on the beach. It is so naive to think otherwise that it is irrational.

In a democracy if they voted for that yes. But a Christian democracy wouldn't do. It would strike at the foundations of Christianity.

So is polygamy and we haven't heard yet why polygamous people should not be allowed to use the word "marriage". That's on Ignore.

So, are you going to disinherit us spendi because we don't express our feelings using the words you want spendi?

Perhaps you are missing the deeper meanings in Lear.

But were it to my fancy given
To rate her charms, I'd call them heaven;
For though a mortal made of clay,
Angels must love Anne Hathaway;

She hath a way so to control,
To rapture the imprisoned soul,
And sweetest heaven on earth display,
That to be heaven Anne hath a way;

She hath a way,
Anne Hathaway,–
To be heaven's self Anne hath a way.

It's not about "special interest;" it's about our Constitution.

Southern US states weren't Christian until the 1960s?

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

You were told why. You are the one that put the argument on ignore. It's settled law when it comes to polygamous marriages. The courts already decided.