Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

I call it "The Position of an Idiot" This will be going on show in the Tate Modern next week and is a strong contender for the Turner prize.

Are you actually serious? I genuinely can't tell. As a piece f parody, that post would be OK, but as an attempt at a meaningful argument it is some way wide of the mark.By the way, I think you'll find it's "A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.".

---

Mutate and Survive

But it's too simple, as I have said before. Get the government out of the business of "marriage." I'm for gay rights, gay liberties, gay squirrels, and gay civil unions. If gays or squirrels want to get "married," let them go to a non-governmental agency to do that. Why do I have to live under a law that sanctions and regulates who gets "married"? That's the churches' business. The law should serve only the needs of couples or pairs or flocks or herds who want to be civilly united. Same's true for same sex: let them be civilly united, but why should they be legally "married"? They can't even consummate a marriage, which actually does have legal standing in terms of invoking a marriage annulment.Question for you Granny: Why isn't a CIVIL UNION between same sexes enough to make them happy?Answer: Because they want to push their agendas all the way up the noses of those straight sons-a-bitches. They want the whole biblical "marriage" bit, even if they don't have the right equipment to consummate it. The government doesn't sanction or outlaw sex between same sexes, unless it is the mired in antebellum politics, so why should it sanction same-sex "marriage"? You may be right about Eric Idle. Maybe I was thinking of an old Rod Stewart album.”HM

quote:

---

Why isn't a CIVIL UNION between same sexes enough to make them happy?

​

Answer: Because they want to push their agendas all the way up the noses of those straight sons-a-bitches. They want the whole biblical "marriage" bit, even if they don't have the right equipment to consummate it.

---

Exactly!Just like those uppity nigras, wanting the same schools, water fountains and restrooms as white folk.BTW, I think you'll find, if you bother to look into it, that failure to consummate is not a ground for annulment in most states. Instead, it's an inability to consummate that was unknown to the other party at the time of the marriage. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You may have a good argument that government pay no heed to religious ceremonies honoring only the civil contract. I’d not argue with that. Have private sector weddings and separate registration of civil commitments. That would instantly turn me into a bastard in the eyes of the state, but that’s nothing compared to what I call them.If that is the case then gay couples can get married any time they want in a religious marriage now. If you’ll take a gander you’d notice there are all kinds of churches willing to marry gay couples. It is the lack of parity with straight couples in the eyes of the government ” the government of, for and by gay and straight alike ” that is the problem.As far as consummation goes, I again fail to see where your compelling interest lies, but even there you’re wrong. Unless you’re going to narrowly limit the meaning of the word sexual in sexual intercourse. Think Ol’ Bill was telling the truth about poor Monica?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

All right, forget the consummation part. It's got no legs. I'll sum it this way: I believe gay couples should have all the legal rights that straight couples have in the area of state-sanctioned civil unions. Beyond the government's legal interests, "marriages" should be the exclusive domain of free enterprise. Just take the word "marriage" out of the law.But that's not really the point. The point is this: Gays want to run their agenda all the up the flagpole with their squeaky battle cry: "WE'RE REAL HUMAN PEOPLE, TOO, WHO JUST WANT TO BE ACCEPTED FOR WHO WE ARE." And I believe they should be, I truly do. But I also believe that their self-proclaimed dire situation is NOT IN ANY WAY AS DIRE AS THE SITUATION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.”HM

---

A wink's as good as a nudge to a blind horse. ”Eric Idle

Certainly it's not as dire, but the parallels are there.Gays are getting killed, just for being gay.Religious bigots are denying them the same opportunities as straights, for no articulable reason other than religious bigotry. (This is not to say that all religious people are bigots, but the anti-gay position would be dead in the water without the religious opposition.)The idea that they should just settle for a separate but equal institution, and those who don't are trying to shove something down someone else's throat.I wouldn't have a problem with your proposal to take government out of the marriage business all together, just issue civil unions and let churches, do the marrying, but that will never happen, and there's no particular reason to do so. Other than the fact that gays can't marry, there's really nothing particularly wrong with the way that the institution of marriage is a blend of religious and governmental consequences. You can get married by a judge or by a minister/priest/rabbi/etc. So what? What's the problem with that? Overhauling the whole institution just to deal with the issue of gay marriage seems ridiculously extreme, unless there's another problem that I'm not aware of.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Oh, come on. Skate boarders, women, and old people are getting killed just for being skate boarders, women, and old people. I really don't understand why a straight person, religious otherwise, needs to be labeled anti-gay and called a bigot just because he wants to see marriage preserved for couples of opposes sexes. How utterly traditional to the point of being savage!Please tell me what I gain by the legalization of gay "marriage." It's does nothing to or for me either way. Gay marriage is an out-of-the-closet issue of third-rate importance. Ranks in there with veteran benefits.”HM

quote:

---

I really don't understand why a straight person, religious otherwise, needs to be labeled anti-gay and called a bigot just because he wants to see marriage preserved for couples of opposes sexes.

---

Well, it's a conclusion I've come to, based on the fact that nobody has been able to articulate a reason for being opposed to gay marriage other than bigotry. People talk all the time about gay marriage being an attack on traditional marriage, and defending heterosexual marriage, but I've never heard any rational explanation about how gay marriage will change heterosexual marriage in any way. I'll still be married to my wife. My brothers will still be married to their wives. My dad will still be married to his wife. It just means that other people will be able to enter into the same kind of union with people of the same sex. How does that change mine? Or anyone else's?

quote:

---

Please tell me what I gain by the legalization of gay "marriage." It's does nothing to or for me either way. Gay marriage is an out-of-the-closet issue of third-rate importance.

---

Wow.Defining the importance of any issue by how it affects you, with no consideration whatsoever for other people, is about the shallowest way that any person can approach life. I fully admit that it will have no bearing on me personally. But at the same time, I'm aware of the fact that I'm not the only person in the country. And I'm not so self-absorbed that I'm unable to see that other people different from me still want many of the same things that I do. And if they can have an opportunity to have that in a way that will not interfere with my happiness in any way, well, that tells me that the question isn't why should they have it, but why shouldn't they?As far as whether it directly affects you or not, do you have any children? What if one of them were gay? Would you want them to have the same right to marry whomever they loved? What about grandchildren?It's perhaps of no importance to you because it doesn't affect you. You know what? I can live with that. What I can't understand or tolerate is someone who's against it, fully knowing that it won't affect them in any way, but they're still against it because of what they think their god wants.It costs them nothing; it doesn't affect them in any way; yet they still want to deny it to others. If that doesn't equate to bigotry, you're going to have to explain to me why not.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I know what would be in it for me. If we all stop butting into other peoples business maybe we can turn those garish Gay Pride parades into humdrum Gay So What parades. I hate parades.And skate boarders deserve it.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Let me try to explain why it's not bigotry.1. Gay people already have every single right that I have under the law. They can get married, just like me, to any member of the opposite sex.2. There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accommodate gays. Just take the word "marriage" out of it.3. Unlike black people, gay people choose to be gay. So now they are the ones feeling left out for the choices they made. There is no scientific reason I know of to explain how a gay person's biology makes them gay.4. Bigotry is a term thrown by people who are bigots in their own right. Gay bigotry is another word for in-your-face, same-sex french kissing on the ferry while you're commuting home from work at night. Bigotry by gays is done all the time to offend people for their out-of-the-closet pleasure.Am I a bigot for not wanted to use Seattle's downtown public toilets that are inhabited by homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes? Do they even have a choice in the matter? Which is more offensive to human rights, a homeless person with no pot to piss in or a homosexual who can't marry his locker-room buddy?”HM

Goes double for snow boarders.”HM

quote:

---

1. Gay people already have every single right that I have under the law. They can get married, just like me, to any member of the opposite sex.

---

They can't marry the person they are in love with. How is that the same as you?

quote:

---

3. Unlike black people, gay people choose to be gay. So now they are the ones feeling left out for the choices they made. There is no scientific reason I know of to explain how a gay person's biology makes them gay.

---

Far as I know, the jury's still out on this matter. But it's irrelevant any way.We protect the government from discriminating against people on the basis of religious beliefs, and there's no doubt that that's a matter of choice. So the whole choice issue is a red herring, trotted out by people who don't have a substantive objection. Choice or not is meaningless.{quote2. There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accommodate gays. Just take the word "marriage" out of it.[/quote]That would fix the problem. So would letting gays marry. I've already explained that I'd accept that fix, but it's not going to happen. You still have not offered any reason for rejecting gay marriage.

quote:

---

4. Bigotry is a term thrown by people who are bigots in their own right. Gay bigotry is another word for in-your-face, same-sex french kissing on the ferry while you're commuting home from work at night. Bigotry by gays is done all the time to offend people for their out-of-the-closet pleasure.

---

So why isn't it bigotry for heterosexuals to do the same thing?

quote:

---

Am I a bigot for not wanted to use Seattle's downtown public toilets that are inhabited by homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes? Do they even have a choice in the matter? Which is more offensive to human rights, a homeless person with no pot to piss in or a homosexual who can't marry his locker-room buddy?

---

Hmmmm, a whole string of things that have nothing to do with the topic. Dodge much?Letting gays marry wouldn't change heterosexual marriage in any way. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And when gay marriage allowed you'll still have the same rights as them. Both you and a homosexual will have the right to marry a person of either sex.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Jesus christ hoot. Black people already had every single right that white people had under the law. They could get married, just like any white person, to any member of their own race. There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accomodate interracial couples. Just take the word "marriage" out of it. Jesus christ, hoot. Are you senile? Remember that long conversation we had about how a research group was able to "cure" animal homosexuals via hormonal and chemical treatments? I asked you then if to you this was an indication of homosexuality being more than just choice and you admitted that you agreed that it was an indication that it had something to do with biology. Now, you're either a liar or just senile. Which is it? Why should they be in the closet in the first place?

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.