The California Supreme court overturned a ban on gay (same sex) marriages in California. Thereby opening the door for same sex marriages to take place in CA in about 30 days. Mid June or so.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/....html

Here for hoping we can intelligently discuss this without flaming any person or group. Feel free to politely offer your opinion on the matter.

The court did not legalize anything new, it upheld the Mayor's overstep of the people's vote on how to define same-sex unions. There is no equal protection discrepancy between marriage and domestic partnership in California.

If there was another proposition I'd favor gay marriage. I'm not concerned with the semantics of the law, but the court shouldn't have assumed that role.

sensibleS13driver wrote: There is no equal protection discrepancy between marriage and domestic partnership in California.

Actually, I think the court found that domestic partnerships did not afford the same rights that marriage provided, and that there was an equal protection issue involved. That's why they ruled in favor of the right to marry.

No, there isn't a difference. They ruled that there is an inherent inequality of protections in the differentiation between "marriage" and "domestic partnership". I can appreciate that point, but I don't view it as more compelling than the standing law.

I'm still reading, but the opinion is good so far. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op...9.PDF

sensibleS13driver wrote:No, there isn't a difference. They ruled that there is an inherent inequality of protections in the differentiation between "marriage" and "domestic partnership". I can appreciate that point, but I don't view it as more compelling than the standing law.

I'm still reading, but the opinion is good so far. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op...9.PDF

I think I was saying the same thing...just differently.

hmm

Life's a box of chocolates and that's all I have to say about that.

Im glad more states are making news with these decisions, whether the law is anything new or not. Lots of same sex couples are adopting American children that would otherwise be stranded in foster homes and state run facilities. That alone is reason enough for me to support same sex marriage whole-heartedly.

Having the Courts, ANY OF THEM, say that Gay marriage is ok sends a bad example IMO. What example is that? That it's ok to be Gay and you'll be openly excepted. It's not a Left or a Right problem, it's ALL of our problem.

For those of you that don't care, what about your kids? Want your boy to suck d!ck and get his *** ****ed?

Don't give me this genetic **** either, faggots are the recourse of bad parenting.

Having a child adopted by a gay couple is a good thing? I stronglu disagree. The child is already going to have mental issues, then you throw him in with a couple of dudes as daddy and daddy. Yeah, he's going to turn out well. There are normal couples waiting in line to adopt, they are waiting because of red tape. It's Not because there aren't enough willing parents.

One system has nothing to do with the other. Although both are closely related because they revolve around bad parenting.

WD

I just dont see anyting wrong with homosexual couples.

Thats 2 more people that wont be contributing to the overpopulation problem, if it helps you to look at it that way.

Ive been around homosexual people my whole life and it never had an impact on how I looked at other men. I think thats a ridiculous stand to take on the topic.

The only problem I have with homosexuality is that its becoming trendy and that some feel it means they should be treated differently.

What threat do you feel same sex marriage could possibly pose on society? What impact do you foresee same sex couples' children having on society, outside of a threat to the conservative view of normal?

wawazat8402 wrote:I just dont see anyting wrong with homosexual couples.

Thats 2 more people that wont be contributing to the overpopulation problem, if it helps you to look at it that way.

That's doesn't "help" me see ****s in any other way then bad.

wawazat8402 wrote:Ive been around homosexual people my whole life and it never had an impact on how I looked at other men. I think that's a ridiculous stand to take on the topic.

The fact that you think it's ok means that you HAVE been impacted. I have two sons that I don't want exposed to Gay relations. I don't want them to think it's ok to enjoy putting another mans pen15 in your mouth. I want them to become nauseated at the site of two queers skipping down the sidewalk holding hands.

wawazat8402 wrote:The only problem I have with homosexuality is that its becoming trendy and that some feel it means they should be treated differently.

This is exactly my point. Trendy means it's catching on...it's not cool to love people of the same sex. The people most influenced by this are the young. Again, I don't want my sons hearing or reading about GAY being acceptable.

wawazat8402 wrote:What threat do you feel same sex marriage could possibly pose on society? What impact do you foresee same sex couples' children having on society, outside of a threat to the conservative view of normal?

Our society is based on common Christian beliefs. The bible says outright that homosexuality is a bad thing. It's bad enough that we say. "seasons greetings" so we don't offend people, I say screw you...move the hell out of the country if you don't like our "conservative traditional beliefs." There are plenty of countries that allow h0m0's to feel right at home.

As far as the children go, are you seriously willing to debate that same sex parents aren't going to have a negative impact on a child? Gay people are NOT the majority in this country and for the most part they are frowned upon. Hows it gonna look when Johnny brings his two Dads to the football game? He's gonna get teased and beat up his whole life because two selfish people wanted to go against the grain and adopt a child.

Traditional beliefs...the United States as whole was weakened the day we took the Pledge of Allegiance out of school. We were weakened when we quit having a moment of silence at the beginning of the day. We were weakened when we removed God from everything and installed political correctness in it's place. We are the country we are today because of the views of our for fathers. I'm sorry if you aren't a Christian, this is a country based on those beliefs and I'll not sit idly by while some flower toting queers tare it down and disgrace everything my family has fought for.

God Bless America, if you don't like it...the door is open and you can GTFO!!!

Wow, Im going to assume most of that was not directed towards me personally. I worked very hard and reworded/omitted things in my post to keep religion out of it per forum rules.

Yes, I am atheist. No I dont care that other people have religious beliefs as long as they dont push them on me. Yes I always said "under god" in the pledge and dont really care if its printed on the money or not.

However, my stance on using religion and random quotes from the "good" book to hide a persons insecurities about being around others who are different, is that its kind of weak minded. These "****s", as you put it, pose no threat to you. Let me know when they start knocking down your door to take your bible and burn it on your lawn, then I will come closer to understanding your side.

Its good to know youre proud of raising your children to become intolerant, close-minded people. I was a little scared for a moment that the US was going to run out of people like that for a minute.

The only reason the kid being adopted by same sex couples will be " teased and beat up his whole life" is because you take pride in raising a couple of intolerant children and push them to react that way.

I just never understood how someone could be so disgusted by something that doesnt affect them in any meaningful way that they would wish unhappiness on another human being.

The only thing I can really respond to that mindset is, " Grow the f*** up, live your life, be happy."

WDRacing wrote:Our society is based on common Christian beliefs.

No it isn't.

There's no legal precedent for that and so it isn't the case.

I am all for the expansion of any personal liberty that doesn't negatively effect other citizens (offending doesn't count), as it just means less government in our lives.

How can a so-called "conservative" favor government intervention when it comes to gay marriage, flag-burning, and abortion and yet be against government intervention when it comes to redistributive taxation, firearms regulation, or draconian CARB/vehicle laws?

Pick a f**king side and stay on it.

Here's my take on it:

If the FIRST thing I know about you when we meet for the first time is your sexual orientation, your religion, your beliefs, your politics or your race, then YOU have the problem, not me.

Be gay all you want - But quit trying to force me to accept it. Don't get pissed at me (or go crying to your attorney) if I mock it, tease you about it, or openly disapprove of it.

If we're going to have a "line", then let's be fair on who DRAWS that line. What's next? NAMBLA legitimized? The KKK? Why not? It's just someone else's idea of "normal".

I'm fine with civil unions. I'm fine with relationships that are outside the "norm", and I'm fine with being tolerant if I must. But quit shoving it down my damn throat, or there's gonna be a backlash.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:
Pick a f**king side and stay on it.

I don't conform to party politics Hash and the people that do are ruining this Nation. I'll believe in anything I want and support anything I want. I'm an Independant, but I can't vote for one cause they'll never get elected so I vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't like any of the current runners and I don't agree with ALL of the things that either party stands for.

Hence I make up my own mind and do the things I think are best.

Homosexuality bothers me...the fact that it bothering me bothers you makes me wonder man...Bi-curious

And CARB dude? C-mon pick something else to argue about. It's obvious I don't like carb cause I'm a tuner...

HashiriyaS14 wrote:
No it isn't.

There's no legal precedent for that and so it isn't the case.

Better re-read the Declaration of Independence.

p.s. FWIW, I oppose government intervention in ALL the areas you mentioned. However, along with that comes the concept of "natural consequences" - If I, as a CEO, don't want to hire someone because they're gay, Hispanic, or have no legs, then your government needs to stay out of my business.

Can't have your liberties and your protections too.

Picking a side isn't as easy as it sounds.

AZhitman wrote:...If the FIRST thing I know about you when we meet for the first time is your sexual orientation, your religion, your beliefs, your politics or your race, then YOU have the problem, not me...

Note to self: order the following: shades, gloves, trenchcoat, scarf, wig, and camo paint. Don't want Greg to know I'm CaBlAsian right off the bat...

Sil40_Mayhem wrote:Note to self: order the following: shades, gloves, trenchcoat, scarf, wig, and camo paint. Don't want Greg to know I'm CaBlAsian right off the bat...

Too late.

You know what I mean - It's the person who allows himself to be identified by his orientation / heritage / disability / membership that makes me want to hurl.

Man first. Gay / Black / Disabled / Retarded / Veteran / activist / etc. later.

WDRacing wrote:Homosexuality bothers me...the fact that it bothering me bothers you makes me wonder man...Bi-curious

That's the dumbest f**king thing I've ever heard.

Just because something bothers you doesn't mean that you're allowed to make laws forbidding people to do it. That's not how America works.

You have stuff about you that makes you a "protected class" in certain employment and life situations too, buddy. You know what I'm talking about.

Greg: For what it's worth, in regards to the CEO comment, I'd agree with you. My inner Adam Smith tells me that you should absolutely be allowed to not hire those people and that the economic solution is that they form their own businesses as we live in a society that allows them to do that.

So yes, we do not disagree on that point. I'm all for unrestricted capitalism. I'm all for sacrificing protections to preserve liberties. Yep, that's me.

Yeah, I know what you mean. And I can respect that.

My opinion is that 'marriage' should be set aside for one man and one woman. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever you call them can have the same legal rights, allowances, and protections, and that would be fine. My issue is in the terminology. Same-sex couples want tax breaks and healthcare benefits? Let them. But the sanctity of marriage, in my opinion, should be left intact. Note: this also applies to heterosexual polygamy as well.

.

Im with you on that one AZHitman. The part that bugs me the most are that some groups of people (take your pick, they all have someone that fits this description) want to have the exact same liberties as the group that represents a majority in society, but when it comes to being eligible for a job, they want special treatment to put them ahead of someone else. My dad used to see it all the time at the Oklahoma City Fire Dept. A lot of people were hired purely on their classification in society, beating out others that were MUCH more qualified for the job according to test results. Then they complained because the firefighters treated them differently and gave them a hard time.

What exactly makes me protected Hash? I don't know what you're referring to in the slightest.

Having laws in place and changed IS the way America works, it's called democracy. So if I think a certain law is a good idea, I'll vote for it...pretty simple process really. In fact, it's kinda how we get laws in the first place...so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

If we voted to Ban Gay marriage and the majority won and it was made LAW, that's America. If we voted and it was put down as a bad idea, I can also live with that. The point is I was allowed to voice my opinion just like you are yours.

The fact that I AM voicing my opinion LOUDLY is my right, something about free speech...I dunno, I think I read that somewhere.

By saying I can't protest you're infringing on MY rights that you so galantly claim to defend. So maybe YOU should pick a side

The administration has set the policy regarding religious topics/posts. They are not allowed. Although I don't see that anyone has crossed this line, I would ask that you leave religion and religious references out of your discussion. We need to respect the rules that have been set for us here. Respect breeds respect.

Thanks for your cooperation.

y'kno, good for them. it gives them solace... imo, it was only a matter of time, considering we probably have the largest population of gays.

WDRacing wrote:Having the Courts, ANY OF THEM, say that Gay marriage is ok sends a bad example IMO. What example is that? That it's ok to be Gay and you'll be openly excepted. It's not a Left or a Right problem, it's ALL of our problem.

no its not. you act like California's forcing gay onto everyone else or something... its merely a decision upon a person if he or she wants to be gay. This now just gives them a "marriage" label to add upon.

Yeah, I dont want my kid to be gay or whatnot... but this law does not determine the outcome of my kid's sexuality... MTV does that for us.

rn79870 wrote:The administration has set the policy regarding religious topics/posts. They are not allowed. Although I don't see that anyone has crossed this line, I would ask that you leave religion and religious references out of your discussion. We need to respect the rules that have been set for us here. Respect breeds respect.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Totally agree...I'll refrain from further mention of said black book

adrians_s13 wrote:
no its not. you act like California's forcing gay onto everyone else or something...

They are...it's awful. I saw a whole squad of them with syringes filled with "The Ghey" and they were stabbing people!!!

I'm gonna take the path of a wise man and "bow out" as I don't see this going anywhere. I'm gonna sit by my pool, have a beer and not give a **** what anyone does. Or atleast try to

If my statements pissed anyone off it wasn't my intent.

WD

WDRacing wrote:If my statements pissed anyone off it wasn't my intent.

too late.

I went from --> to this

haha jk

You didnt piss me off at all. I strongly disagree with your opinion, however, at least you have an opinion. Nothings worse than someone who cares about nothing to the point of never even forming an opinion on anything.

Ive actually found I agree with you on a lot of topics.

WDRacing wrote:Don't give me this genetic **** either, faggots are the recourse of bad parenting.

I dunno about that. I wouldn't say its genetics but maybe biological...its not like you can choose what makes your d!ck get hard, you know. You see something you like, boing. Kinda like when you have one guy who thinks one girl is hot, the other's like I dunno man. Like for me, I don't find black women attractive, I just don't. Its not that I'm racist, I have them as friends, just have never been attracted to them.

It definitely doesn't have anything to do with parenting either. You have people who grew up with brothers and sisters and that one person is the only gay one in the family.

Since debate has already started that I didn't really want to start, I'm open to civil unions, but marriage, uh huh

sensibleS13driver wrote:Homosexuality doesn't bother the Constitution. The reason we rely on the courts to make these decisions is because they involve groups which have been and would continue to be denied constitutional protections if left to majority rule.

Which brings us to a VERY important point and one that is not limited to the confines of this particular discussion.

The RIGHTS of the minority outweigh the WILL of the majority....*every time*.

This is the most fundamental principle of American democracy and it is the first principle compromised by a totalitarian regime.

Something we've neglected to consider (and discuss) are the social and LEGAL implications of this change.

Allow me to state that I am fully ignorant to the impact of this change with regard to probate, wills, estates, community property, healthcare, taxation, etc etc etc.

Let's hear some of that - I think we're all in basic agreement that we don't care what goes on behind closed doors, but we've got some REAL and VALID concerns about the hypocrisy of being advantaged while claiming "disadvantage".