California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

First of all, I object to your use of the word rights. Whether or not marriage is a right for gay people is exactly what the debate is about. It isn't a right except in the minds of people who want gays to be allowed to marry. That is nothing more than your position.

Second of all, you don't know whether or not he has a compelling reason to keep marriage something between a man and a woman. If it's important to him, then he does have a compelling reason from his point of view.

Finally, your implication that he as to prove it must be denied is ludicrous. You can't prove it should be granted. He doesn't have to prove anything beyond the fact that it strikes him as distasteful. Speaking for myself alone, I think marriage is a beautiful thing, because love between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing, and that that type of love - sexual love - between two people of the same sex represents an unpleasant corruption of it. If someone is born with that wiring, I'm sure he can't help it, and I wouldn't ever hold it against him, but I am not obligated to endorse it.

Speaking for myself alone, I think marriage is a beautiful thing, because love between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing, and that that type of love - sexual love - between two people of the same sex represents an unpleasant corruption of it.

We get the right to choose what we support,

if we don't support the change in the definition of marriage then the minority is going to need to suck it up and drive on.

So long as they gain most of the rights of being married the courts have no justification for claiming the rights are being denied in a way that violates the constitution.

This is a case of competing rights

...This is not how law works. We don't make a list of the things that are legal. We make a list of things that are illegal. For something to be illegal it needs to have a demonstrateable negative impact.

Your endorsement doesn't mean anything. Who gives a ****? Your approval is not needed.

I don't endorse a lot of things. Doesn't mean I have the right to deny others their rights. I don't endorse Fred Phelps, but I'm not trying to take away his right to speak. And by not taking away his right to free speech, I'm not endorsing his speech either.

Granting the same rights you have to a group is not an endorsement.

T
K
O

Actually, my endorsement is needed, because I have one vote. And if most people agree with me that gay marriage is undesirable, according to the system of laws we live under, it won't happen. Careful, your contempt for democracy is showing.

Quote:

Actually, my endorsement is needed, because I have one vote. And if most people agree with me that gay marriage is undesirable, according to the system of laws we live under, it won't happen. Careful, your contempt for democracy is showing.

Absolutely, and the gay rights delusion that they can ram their wants through the courts and thus get them affirmed on "rights" grounds is fatally flawed, because if the courts run afoul of the people they will lose their credibility and thus their power. The courts only have the power that we allow them to have, and if they go rouge they will be stripped of their power. Judges know this, the supremes have been very careful to not get too far outside of the collective. The Supremes seem to assume that the collective will continue recent generations path towards affirming gays rights, but this is certainly not assured.

We the people do not need to have a compelling reason to refuse to redefine marriage, we are the government, we can do anything we want to do. We don't have a compelling reason to do a lot of the thing we do, make a lot of the law we do, much if it can be shown to be counter productive or useless but we do it anyways. TKO is lost in some law school fantasyland that is disconnected from an underrstanding of where the real power in this nation is, which is with the people.

Not according to them. If you vote in a way that they don't like, they'll find some liberal judge to declare that the result is unconstitutional

Actually, my endorsement is needed, because I have one vote. And if most people agree with me that gay marriage is undesirable, according to the system of laws we live under, it won't happen. Careful, your contempt for democracy is showing.

We the people do not need to have a compelling reason to refuse to redefine marriage, we are the government, we can do anything we want to do.

Diest TKO wrote:

...This is not how law works. We don't make a list of the things that are legal. We make a list of things that are illegal. For something to be illegal it needs to have a demonstrateable negative impact.

Your endorsement doesn't mean anything. Who gives a ****? Your approval is not needed.

I don't endorse a lot of things. Doesn't mean I have the right to deny others their rights. I don't endorse Fred Phelps, but I'm not trying to take away his right to speak. And by not taking away his right to free speech, I'm not endorsing his speech either.

Granting the same rights you have to a group is not an endorsement.

T
K
O

Actually, my endorsement is needed, because I have one vote. And if most people agree with me that gay marriage is undesirable, according to the system of laws we live under, it won't happen. Careful, your contempt for democracy is showing.

I'm also amused at ya'll going back and forth with each other rather than, say, actually answering the question of how gay marriage impacts you in the least way

Quote:

I'm also amused at ya'll going back and forth with each other rather than, say, actually answering the question of how gay marriage impacts you in the least way

actually I have. You however keep up with the not understanding, it seems to be outside of your conceptual abilities. You are the guy who would be working for Wells Fargo and the day after they bought Wachovia you would walk to your desk as you have every other day, talk the the same people that you do everyday, pushed the same papers that you do everyday, and then tell your fellow employees "what are you all talking about this Wachovia thing for, can't you see that nothing has changed" . In other words you don't have a clue.

So one bank buys another bank. If they still care for your money, and your interest rates or fees don't change, then what is the reason to care? You don't like the name?