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

No, Hoot Mon, I did not put forth a self contradictory statement. I am not comparing the plight of blacks and this Country to the plight of homosexuals.I'm going to go slowly here, so maybe you can keep up. What I (and others) are telling you is that you (and Catholic Scientist) are using the very same arguments to prevent homosexuals from marrying members of the same sex, as were once used by people to prevent blacks from marrying whites. I am not, nor have I ever, stated that homosexuals face the same problems in this society as blacks once did and often still do. I'm simply pointing out that your rather weak argument against homosexual marriage ("but golly gee, they can marry someone...just so long as that someone is a member of the opposite sex") has already been addressed by the Courts (via laws preventing inter-racial marriage) and has been determined to violate our Constitution. Man, you have some serious issues. I'll give you credit though...as far as I know you are the first person here to compare homosexuality to "tinkle listeners" Why do you hate homosexuals so much? As much as I hate to do this...I have to ask. How in the fuck will allowing gay marriage in any way affect the number of abortions in this Country?Man, the complete and utterly preposterous bull shit you come up with as a means of justifying your homophobic bigotry is nothing short of amazing.

There you go. You did it again. Come on! You and your side of the argument can't leave it alone. Your whole spiel is predicated on racial-discrimination principles. And that makes it bogus and irrelevant. Well, I would venture to say that Larry and Frank would be less likely to need an abortion than Jim and Jennifer would. Neither Larry nor Frank are NATURALLY endowed with a complete set of equipment for getting either one of them pregnant.Can't you see how ridiculous this "gay marriage" issue is? It may not be ridiculous to you, but it is to a vast majority of Americans who regard "marriage" to be a civil and sacred union between members of opposite sexes. No one is wrong or bigoted for holding that opinion. And anyone who says they are wrong for holding that opinion would fit my definition of a "bigot."”HM

Any special group can claim DISCRIMINATION if they want to make a legal issue over it. Accusations of DISCRIMINATION can come from any minority group, if it chooses to put political spin on its claims. But where is the DISCRIMINATION if the law were to allow gays, as well as straights, to get civilly united, while making no reference to marriage, per se? It's a simple solution. Let the churches decide who gets married. The First Amendment would be friendly to that. Problem solved.But, oh, no! That doesn't cut it for the gays. They want the LAW to say they're "married," even if the LAW doesn't (or wouldn't) specify "marriage"”the word”in sanctioning heterosexual civil unions.There's the acid test for bigotry.btw: bluescat48, I don't regard you as a bigot.”HM

Hi Rrhain,I suppose you expect me to google up all of laws and quotes you use to support your argument. Here's the most recent example: Is that a quote? Where's the link? Am I suppose to go chasing after it?”HM

So then change all marriage licenses to civil union licenses. They are not church documents but local government documents.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

That is the only way I know of to resolve this issue fairly. If I follow you correctly, I agree. Let the churches decide who gets married, and let the government decide who gets civilly united.”HM

As long as the rights & benefits are the same for both.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

I agree with this sentiment however, since the vocabulary is "marriage", changing the legalize isn't really going to change the fight.If a Conn. couple (hetero or homo) enters into a civil union, everyone is still going to refer to it as a marriage.Further, wouldn't we then run into the following problem:The STATE agrees all these people are in civil unions.The Catholic Church agrees that only heterosexual couples can be "married" in their church.The Methodists agree to allow homosexual marriages.The Catholics refuse to acknowledge the Methodist homosexual marriages.So, the Methodists refuse to acknowledge the Catholic heterosexual marriages.Unless we COMPLETELY strip the "church" marriages of any meaning, power, significance, etc we're gonna end up with 10,000 different versions of "marriage".

As has been pointed out to you many times now, this is an impossible and impractical goal. By aiming for such an impossible goal, in the end nothing gets done and we are back to square one. I suspect this is your true intention.

---

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

Not being a religious person myself I couldn't care less what the churches do. They can marry a six-year-old girl to a G.I. Joe doll and it wouldn't bother me. But I do care what the government does with its laws, since I am of them, by them, and for them, according to Lincoln.”HM

My goal is to demonstrate that even an atheist can see through that frilly veil called "gay marriage." It's an in-your-face kind of a demand that resembles a childish tantrum. Let the churches do what they want, but just stay out of the laws with your "gay marriage." To have the laws, the ones I must obey, say that "marriage" is not necessarily a civil union between a man and a woman is to piss off many good people. But "I suspect this is your true intention."Let's have a national referendum on the matter, Taz. How do you supposed that would turn out?”HM

But clearly, even you can see that this is also an impossible goal. Since when have religious people get their religious noses out of secular laws? Well, tough! Believe it or not, a black person ought to be treated as a fully human being rather than 3/5 of a person. I'm sure you also have a problem with this. So, why aren't you opposed to the 14th amendment and selective incorporation? Yes, and I'm sure the majority always knows right from wrong If we simply allow the majority to have their way everytime, we'd still have three fifths of a person walking around our backyard doing hard free labor.But yes, I admit that pissing you off is the real gay agenda. As a matter of fact, it's right on the first page of the latest edition of the Gay Agenda I just received in the mail. You really ought to read this book before we talk any further. After the first 40 pages or so, it goes into minute details on how we can piss off people like you.

---

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

Oh, here we go again with this ridiculous comparison between the plight of blacks and the plight of gays. It's B movie. Give it up.”HM

But hoot, back then many people, actually the majority of people, thought giving them blacks full rights was just a way to get in their face. I'm telling you right now. Deep down, pissing you off is the only reason why I support gay marriage. Nothing gives me more joy than rubbing it into your face.

---

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

close. All are civil unions. Marriage, per your request, is a church entity. All these unions whether done in a church or not are sanctioned governmentally as civil unions with the same benefits to all.Edited by bluescat48, : punctuation & spelling

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969