Government Laws on Marriage
AeolusDallas
Active member
Actually no they were not. the courts had to push through quite a few decisions against majority opinion. The public came around after.
The US has this thing called the constitution. It enshines individual rights as the foundation of American Law. And yes we do live in a free society. if you don't wish to live in a free society feel free to move to Iran or China you will no doubt feel much more comfortable without any individual rights.
Chukpike
Banned
I give up. What are you trying to say?
Rob Henderson
Banned
I want to know what's missing from that scenario. I want to know what DOESN'T make that discrimination.
Chukpike
Banned
As per my post to AeolusDallas according to the California Supreme Court it is not "we conclude that the challenged statutes cannot properly be viewed as discriminating on the basis of sex or gender."
senojekips
Active member
The short answer appears to be that, "The Supreme Court says it's not discrimination" .
Where can you go for a more qualified legal opinion than that?
When these nut cases" want an opinion they line up a battery of legal eagles and rush into court, now that this has not got them what they want, they will start arguing that it is not a legal matter and should be a Church matter or decided by someone else.
Had the Supreme Court ruled in their favour, it would have been touted as a great victory for justice, but when it rules against them, suddenly it will be of absolutely no consequence.
Round and Round we go!!!
Where can you go for a more qualified legal opinion than that?
When these nut cases" want an opinion they line up a battery of legal eagles and rush into court, now that this has not got them what they want, they will start arguing that it is not a legal matter and should be a Church matter or decided by someone else.
Had the Supreme Court ruled in their favour, it would have been touted as a great victory for justice, but when it rules against them, suddenly it will be of absolutely no consequence.
Round and Round we go!!!
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Well, if someone banned you from marrying the woman you love, what would you do if the court ruled against you? Say it's a church matter not a government one, perhaps?
Do note that the National Supreme Court also ruled at one point that segregation was okay (Plessy v. Ferguson). Courts can be wrong too.
senojekips
Active member
Once again, the short answer is, No,... just as I don't knowingly break all of other laws, that I personally disagree with. There are many persons I am not allowed to marry by law, and because of that I would not do it regardless of my love for them. e.g. marrying my mother would be about as reprehensible as same sex marriage.
And it seems to have been since corrected. The case you are arguing has not, even after several challenges, that tells me something.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Inbreeding is different. If it could cause abnormalities in future generations it should not be done. (i.e. Marrying your sister)
And it took America from 1776 until 1964 to get the last one right... how many of those cases do you think went to court? There are a couple of famous ones, but there are certainly a number of others too.
senojekips
Active member
Just as is marrying someone of the same sex. I can't marry my father nor my brother either, and that is not because of inbreeding? Yet I loved them both very much.
I couldn't marry my mother even if she were incapable of conceiving. So there's more to it than just genetic reasons.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Well aware.
senojekips
Active member
Naturally,... this subject is about A California ruling.
Has anyone any idea what we are allegedly doing to incite the mods here?
As near as I can see, we have certainly disagreed, (that's what a debate is supposed to be all about) but we have remained civil and pretty much on subject, all the points have been relevant to one degree or another. No one is getting personal, abusive or loosing their sense of humour???
Is there something I am missing?
Rob Henderson
Banned
But the definition of discrimination clearly states that that scenario WOULD be discrimination... And I wasn't asking the California Supreme Court... I was asking YOU.
senojekips
Active member
What definition?... Your definition I suppose?
Certainly not the legal definition, as that has already been ruled upon, and in cases of law that's all that counts.
Chukpike
Banned
What happened to the definition?
No, you were not asking me. I had all ready answered that your scenario was Not Correct, Twice.
You never did give a definition of Discrimination or your definition of Discrimination.
You repetitively asking the same question is nothing more then Flaming.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Post number one-hundred and twenty-eight. Read it and weep. The definition is quoted.
See Chukpike... You're wrong, again. I DID post the definition of discrimination RIGHT OUT OF THE DICTIONARY.
I'll even direct you straight to it!
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/480469-post.html
I'm not flaming, I'm trying to get you to understand that your's and Senojekips' non-acceptance and/or dislike of homosexuals based on the simple fact that they are homosexual is DISCRIMINATION. And by the majority of the ENTIRE NATION (not just California) discrimination is WRONG.
So just to make sure my path is followed correctly.... YOU are wrong.
See Chukpike... You're wrong, again. I DID post the definition of discrimination RIGHT OUT OF THE DICTIONARY.
I'll even direct you straight to it!
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/480469-post.html
I'm not flaming, I'm trying to get you to understand that your's and Senojekips' non-acceptance and/or dislike of homosexuals based on the simple fact that they are homosexual is DISCRIMINATION. And by the majority of the ENTIRE NATION (not just California) discrimination is WRONG.
So just to make sure my path is followed correctly.... YOU are wrong.
major liability
Active member
I approve of civil unions for homosexuals, but to call it marriage would be incorrect. Also, I don't think they should be allowed to adopt and nothing can change my mind on that. I'd be quite pissed if thta had happened to me as a child.
Chukpike
Banned
Post number one-hundred and twenty-eight. Read it and weep. The definition is quoted.
See Chukpike... You're wrong, again. I DID post the definition of discrimination RIGHT OUT OF THE DICTIONARY.
I'll even direct you straight to it!
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/480469-post.html
I'm not flaming, I'm trying to get you to understand that your's and Senojekips' non-acceptance and/or dislike of homosexuals based on the simple fact that they are homosexual is DISCRIMINATION. And by the majority of the ENTIRE NATION (not just California) discrimination is WRONG.
So just to make sure my path is followed correctly.... YOU are wrong.
From an anonymous quote; "I may not always be right but, I am never WRONG."
Went back and looked at Post 128. You quoted a statement with out a source. It doesn't even look like a definition, more like a possible example.
Please post your source.
If one chooses to be homosexual and I choose to ignore their behavior until they demand that their actions be recognised by the government, then I have the right to say no. I was tolerant to the point at wish thay came out of the privacy of their bedroom and demanded their life style be Publicly Recognized and Accepted. Are you going to deny me the right to make choices in what type of community I wish to live in?
You will probably consider this as being selfish. Me to. It just happens to coincide with the selfishness of the majority.
I believe my freedom to bear arms has been infringed by government, I used my ability as a voter to keep the government from further infringing and legitimising something I find objectionable. I used my vote to stop what I believe to be moral decay. In this I and the majority of Californians were successful.
In the future if given the opportunity to overturn the infringements government has placed on my 2nd Amendments I will vote on that also.