Way to go California Supreme Court

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612678
It is apples to apples when you compare that the majority of America wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage and that the courts went against the will of the people to make it legal because that was the right thing to do.
In 1948, when California’s Supreme Court became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, nine out of 10 Americans opposed such unions. Ten years later, the first Gallup poll conducted on the subject of interracial marriage found that 94 percent of whites opposed it, with only 4 percent in favor.
In 1965, at the crest of the civil rights movement, another Gallup poll found that 72 per cent of Southern whites and 42 per cent of Northern whites still wanted to ban interracial marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued its 1967 decision against laws banning interracial marriage, more than 57 percent of Americans still did not approve of interracial marriage.
I'd actually be curious to see a poll of people 30 years old and younger to see what percentage of them would like to see the ban on same --- marriage overturned. I'd bet it'd be the majority; even if you included the south.
This thread has become borderline ridiculous, which isn't that surprising. People have no real reasons why these people should not be able to marry so they make outlandish comparisons and what if's. It'd be easier if they'd just tell the truth and admit that the lifestyle gays and lesbians lead disgusts them or it threatens them or confuses them. It just goes to show that hate and discrimination is still alive and rampant in the US.
The constituion grants people of all races the same rights so the interacial marriage ban was unconstitutional as a fact of law. The US Supreme Court has so far declined to overturn any of the states constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, therefore no constitutional basis exist to support the notion that gays have the right to marry.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612755
They are more then capable of teaching kids about diversity without adding their beliefs or values. Don't you think the world would be a far better place if we taught our young to be accepting and to have a greater awareness of those around them? Or should we shelter them their whole life?
You think the people who can't seem to teach childrent how to make change without a calculator by the time they graduate high school are able to educate them on sexual relationships

I think we would be better off if folks taught their kids to be more accepting of those around them but that honestly isn't the place of the government education system as far as going into specifics. The constitution gurantees the right to practice religion and many consider homosexuality a sin. As a government entity we are required to fund and subject our childrent to schools have a difficult balancing act between promoting tolerance without running afoul of the first amendment.
 

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2612847
That's the problem with your disagreement. You want to bring religion into the debate. It has nothing to do with religion. If a homosexual doesn't believe in God, then there shouldn't be any problem with them getting married. AGAIN, it's a legal issue. If you don't want homosexuals getting married in your church, fine. Ban them from having formal religious wedding ceremonies. You'd find they would have no problem with that
. You want to chastise a class of individuals because it goes against YOUR moral principles. The religious zealots are who keep this country in the Dark Ages.
This was your original argument Bionicarm. You argued that it's simply a legal issue and that a church could simply ban them. You further said they would have no problem with that.
That is not the case.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2613437
So 61% of the population is free to marry someone of the opposite gender. No one's trying to impose a certain value system on them.
You are missing my point. The original post was about being so proud of the state because 4 unelected judges overruled the will of 61% of voters. That is no reason to be crowing about how great Californian is.
 

mie

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613511
You are missing my point. The original post was about being so proud of the state because 4 unelected judges overruled the will of 61% of voters. That is no reason to be crowing about how great Californian is.
Who cares if these judges voted for gay rights or a trafic law, the fact is that they said it does not matter what 61% of our citizens said, it is about our personal agenda's.
And i agree, this is an ebarassment to california and any other state that allows this garbage to go on.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2612864
Not true. http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8893673
A Photographer, who refused to work for a gay civil ceremony, was fined.
Once non-traditional marriages are legalized churches could very well lose their ability to only perform traditional marriages. To pretend the homosexual agenda is only out for "equal rights" is ignoring history.
...
You bring up an excellent point. I remember back in the 70's the feds were threatening to pull the Mormon's tax exempt status because they didn't allow blacks in the priesthood. Before the feds had a chance to act the head of the church had a "revelation" that blacks should be included

If a photographer can't refuse to work a gay wedding I can see churches being fined and such for not accepting gay marriage too.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2613110
Our nation did its part to destroy the native people of our land didn't it or is that a part of our history you've decided to forget?
Well, the photographer is guilty of discrimination isn't she? Wasn't she found guilty and fined? What if it had been an Indian couple or a Muslim couple and the photographer didn't want to participate in a non Christian ceremony? What would you say if a doctor refused them care because they were gay? Would this be alright?
That commission ruling has been appealed to a real court where it will likely be struck down.
 

scotts

Active Member
Originally Posted by mie
http:///forum/post/2613543
Who cares if these judges voted for gay rights or a trafic law, the fact is that they said it does not matter what 61% of our citizens said, it is about our personal agenda's.
And i agree, this is an ebarassment to california and any other state that allows this garbage to go on.
The law was ruled invalid because it went againt the Califorina state constitution. Are you saying that we should throw out the constitution?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2613215
Was it the will of the people when the supreme court said blacks were equal to whites and deserved the same educational opportunities? When the will of the people is unconstitutional then the courts need to step in and protect the minority group. Also, do we want courts that will bend to the will of the people?

Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision? It was a legislative action by the congress and then the people (14th amendment) that made blacks equal, not a court decision. The Supreme Court found (correctly at that time) no decendant of slaves could be US citizen.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2613496
This was your original argument Bionicarm. You argued that it's simply a legal issue and that a church could simply ban them. You further said they would have no problem with that.
That is not the case.
I don't think any gay couple would care about getting married in a church under the current circumstances. Have you asked every single gay couple that if they had a choice to get legally married, but not get married in a church, they would refuse to get married at all? I think you would find the number of gay couples that are looking at bonding their relationship could care less if it occurred in a church. For that matter, they probably couldn't find a church that would let them have a religious ceremony, since 'they' think their relationships are so immoral. Like I said, put a poll together. Give them a choice. See what they say. That's the bottom line. They just want a choice. Now you find another way of trying to deny this right because you're afraid they may sue someone. Geesh, they couldn't sue a church even if they wanted to. Can't sue those non-profit organizations (Yea right. tell that to billionaires Oral Roberts, John Hagee, or any of these other televangelists).
 

scotts

Active Member
The ruling was by the Califorina supreme court. The judges did not specifically rule in favor of same --- marriages. In fact the first time this law was sent before them they threw did not rule on it and it had to make it's way through all the appeal process. They then ruled that the law was unconstitutional as per the Californa State constitution. There is now the process to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to outlaw same --- marriages.
Hopefully this is a wake up call for the voters of CA and we vote down the constitutional amendmant.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2613630
The ruling was by the Califorina supreme court. The judges did not specifically rule in favor of same --- marriages. In fact the first time this law was sent before them they threw did not rule on it and it had to make it's way through all the appeal process. They then ruled that the law was unconstitutional as per the Californa State constitution. There is now the process to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to outlaw same --- marriages.
Hopefully this is a wake up call for the voters of CA and we vote down the constitutional amendmant.
Do you think that having their vote pushed back in their faces is somehow going to change the minds of those who voter for the ban in the first place? I kinda doubt it. It will be interesting to see which way it goes. Ahwnold is against it so that may help.
 
K

kikithemermaid

Guest
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613511
You are missing my point. The original post was about being so proud of the state because 4 unelected judges overruled the will of 61% of voters. That is no reason to be crowing about how great Californian is.
I'm not crowing. Okay votes aside, gay people deserve happiness as much as straight people. And if marriage makes them happy, then let them get married! Are all you Conservatives against gays in general, or just marriage?
 

scotts

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613618
Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision? It was a legislative action by the congress and then the people (14th amendment) that made blacks equal, not a court decision. The Supreme Court found (correctly at that time) no decendant of slaves could be US citizen.
Dred Scot? there is no way that applies to this situation. First of all slavery was still legal back when this happened in the 1850s. AND it was legal as per the constitution. So they upheld the constitutuion.
Where the supreme court has ruled on an issue similar to this was in striking down all the "separate but equal" laws that were so prevelant in the south. It was ruled that you could not discriminate on someone for the color of their skin. So that is what the ruling should be, you cannot discriminate on somone because of their se__ual preference.
 

scotts

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613641
Do you think that having their vote pushed back in their faces is somehow going to change the minds of those who voter for the ban in the first place? I kinda doubt it. It will be interesting to see which way it goes. Ahwnold is against it so that may help.
No, on the first go around the mormon church organized, spent money and heavily promoted the law. I also believe that many people felt, hey this is CA, there in NO WAY that law will pass here. Hopefully the people against the law will be a little more prepared this time and the mormon church does not force their beliefs down my throat.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2613625
I don't think any gay couple would care about getting married in a church under the current circumstances. Have you asked every single gay couple that if they had a choice to get legally married, but not get married in a church, they would refuse to get married at all? I think you would find the number of gay couples that are looking at bonding their relationship could care less if it occurred in a church. For that matter, they probably couldn't find a church that would let them have a religious ceremony, since 'they' think their relationships are so immoral. Like I said, put a poll together. Give them a choice. See what they say. That's the bottom line. They just want a choice. Now you find another way of trying to deny this right because you're afraid they may sue someone. Geesh, they couldn't sue a church even if they wanted to. Can't sue those non-profit organizations (Yea right. tell that to billionaires Oral Roberts, John Hagee, or any of these other televangelists).
I seem to remember a heck of a lot of lawsuits against the Catholic Church recently... Last time I checked they were a Church.
Of course churches can be sued.
I have not polled every gay couple, have you? I am simply pointing out that once non-traditional marriages are legalized then churches will begin to lose their rights to only perform traditional marriages.
If they want a choice fight for civil unions. Don't try to redefine "marriage" while arguing it's only about legal rights. That's nonsense.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by kikithemermaid
http:///forum/post/2613654
I'm not crowing. Okay votes aside, gay people deserve happiness as much as straight people. And if marriage makes them happy, then let them get married! Are all you Conservatives against gays in general, or just marriage?
I'm against any group using the courts to promote a social agenda. Courts are meant to interpret laws, not make them.
As I've said repeatedly, if you want civil unions for same --- partners so be it. There is no Constitutional basis for changing the definition of a word to fit an "alternative" lifestyle. Marriage, from the time our Nation was founded, was between a man and a woman. The courts have no Constitutional right to redefine what a word means to promote an activist agenda.
 
Top