California takes a step backwards!

[Trail-Axe]

Well the Supreme court in California has taken us back to the Dark Ages. They over-turned a VOTER APPROVED state law that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman. So much for our democracy, instead of a people approved way of governing, we now have a type of monarchy that rules and legislates its own ideas from the bench, regardless of what the majority of the good people who live here vote for. Makes me want to throw up!

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

 

[Jump This]

I'm not sure I give a shit.....

and I'm a right wing conservative ass hole!!

 

[ECKSJAY]

CA needs to slide off into the ocean.

FACT

:thumbup:

 

[97XJ2]

When has CA taken a step forward? (Sorry you guys may have some awesome wheeling but you guys just seem goofy, compared to the majority of states anyway.)

 

[ZomBrady]

Well the Supreme court in California has taken us back to the Dark Ages. They over-turned a VOTER APPROVED state law that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman. So much for our democracy, instead of a people approved way of governing, we now have a type of monarchy that rules and legislates its own ideas from the bench, regardless of what the majority of the good people who live here vote for. Makes me want to throw up!

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Many laws have been voter approved and then overturned by the Supreme Court. . . slavery, Jim Crow laws, Women not having the right to vote . . . just because a majority votes for something doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Hence we have the Supreme Court on the state and federal level to arbitrate laws and legislation that are questionable.

Besides, who cares? A marriage license is just a piece of paper, a real marriage is what you make it. Personally, I get a real good laugh when I think of all the silly queers that are now going to be as miserable in married life as the rest of us married folks. Silly queers.

 

[scottmcneal]

They over-turned a VOTER APPROVED .... NO SHIT.. they do this all the time... Why VOTE? Cause if don't you can't bitch about it....This is B S too.. We had a voter approved a couple of years ago, that didn't LAST a day.. OVER turned by one LAWYER.. Hired by a couple of hundred people.... I wish i could find the handle to FLUSH cal into the ocean... Sorry, this just pisses me off.. My 2 cents

Sorry LONG day in the heat

 

[SanDiegoXJ]

Well I'm an anarchist prick....but I still give a shit that the government feels that it knows what's better for me than I do (which is primarily why I classify myself as an anarchist =D).

Frankly, I think the whole gay marriage can be summed up by looking at the etymology of the word. Historically speaking, the term marriage represents a religious ceremony uniting one man and one woman under god.

If gays aren't allowed in the church (and I'm speaking of historical Christain churches...not the "New Age" churches that allow women to be preachers), why should they get to participate in all the reindeer games? Why can't they have their own game (i.e., civil union). If they get the same benefits, why do they have to have the same term. They're just trying to change the dictionary definition of the word so they can be special. The already get "special" rights. If they wanna be more special, maybe they should all take the short bus to work. =) Now don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against gays in general...although I do believe that an anus was designed as an exit only passage, and in this case, going in the out door can be pretty damn nasty! I wouldn't soak my junk in an outhouse, and I ain't sendin' it up anyone's Hershey highway. Now lesbians on the other hand, I can totally relate with. And bisexual chicks, well....they're just fun for the whole family!

However, that doesn't eradicate the fact that the government that exists to represent the people has ultimately made a decision to go against what the majority wanted. That's a call for revolution in my book. And I'm hoping that's the real point of the original post.

 

[ZomBrady]

You guys crack me up!

Seriously, if you can only validate your marriage by telling other people that they can't get married then something's seriously out of whack. Just because some silly queers want to go through the misery of getting married and divorced a couple of years down the road, let'em. I've been married for nearly ten years now and I think that's proof enough that my marriage is sacred, and I can't wait to make another ten!

 

[scottmcneal]

Over 30 here

 

[ZomBrady]

Over 30 here

Awesome! It's always nice to see successes!

 

[scottmcneal]

I just say YES dear alot........... LOL

 

[ZomBrady]

I just say YES dear alot........... LOL

I do that too along with, 'this will improve reliability and gas mileage'. I think she's catching on. . ..

 

[SanDiegoXJ]

You guys crack me up!

Seriously, if you can only validate your marriage by telling other people that they can't get married then something's seriously out of whack. Just because some silly queers want to go through the misery of getting married and divorced a couple of years down the road, let'em. I've been married for nearly ten years now and I think that's proof enough that my marriage is sacred, and I can't wait to make another ten!

First let me say, congratulations on a successful and happy marriage!

But let me also say, I don't have a problem with two men having a relationship. But I'm an English major, well, that's what I blame it on anyway, and as such, definition and the proper use of terms is important to me. I can't stand when anyone tries to change definitions just to benefit themselves.

I used to have arguments with a coworker all the time because he would say something, and I would reply, "That's not true". We'd get in argument, eventually I'd pull out the trusty Webster's and show him a definition, and he'd say, "Well, that's not how I meant it." I would cringe everytime he'd say it. It's no wonder we have such communication problems in this country. Words were given definitions for a reason.

In the case of marriage, it represents a religous ceremony. The church doesn't formally recognize a gay marriage. End of story. Can they go before a government official and get formal civil union...yes they can....in almost every state. They can then pay each other palimony when they break up. Why must they have the right to call their union a marriage when the very definition of the term defies it?

Even if you go to www.dictionary.com, it defines marriage as a man and a woman. A lower definition says a union between two people but has "Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage" in parenthesis. It's like, they had to have an addendum to the definition just for them. That's what bothers me.

Almost as much as the notion of Ebonics. :confused1

 

[kdailey4315]

Sometimes I hate living in CA. Ironically Clinton (the biggest liberal of them all) signed the Defense of Marriage Act which federally defines marriage as that between a MAN and a WOMAN. CA is once again thinking that they are their country. Let alone the legislation that has already been passed as already sated in a previous post. I don't get it. Honestly are they even steps back anymore?
BTW I don't think they should be married. Marriage is a religious term and last I checked no religion allows gays to get married. I have no problem with a civil union or whatever the queers want to call it.

 

[buschwhaked]

They over-turned a VOTER APPROVED .... NO SHIT.. they do this all the time... Why VOTE? Cause if don't you can't bitch about it....This is B S too.. We had a voter approved a couple of years ago, that didn't LAST a day.. OVER turned by one LAWYER.. Hired by a couple of hundred people.... I wish i could find the handle to FLUSH cal into the ocean... Sorry, this just pisses me off.. My 2 cents

Sorry LONG day in the heat

Checks and balances are a bitch aren't they? But according to SC Justice Scalia, he doesn't think any precidences set before 2000 should be considered in future rulings. To quote one of my favorite one of my favorite comedians, "Guess I should go get me a slave now." eace:

But back to the original point of the thread, my personal philosophy is "big fences make for great neighbors."

 

[ZomBrady]

First let me say, congratulations on a successful and happy marriage!

But let me also say, I don't have a problem with two men having a relationship. But I'm an English major, well, that's what I blame it on anyway, and as such, definition and the proper use of terms is important to me. I can't stand when anyone tries to change definitions just to benefit themselves.

I used to have arguments with a coworker all the time because he would say something, and I would reply, "That's not true". We'd get in argument, eventually I'd pull out the trusty Webster's and show him a definition, and he'd say, "Well, that's not how I meant it." I would cringe everytime he'd say it. It's no wonder we have such communication problems in this country. Words were given definitions for a reason.

In the case of marriage, it represents a religous ceremony. The church doesn't formally recognize a gay marriage. End of story. Can they go before a government official and get formal civil union...yes they can....in almost every state. They can then pay each other palimony when they break up. Why must they have the right to call their union a marriage when the very definition of the term defies it?

Even if you go to www.dictionary.com, it defines marriage as a man and a woman. A lower definition says a union between two people but has "Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage" in parenthesis. It's like, they had to have an addendum to the definition just for them. That's what bothers me.

Almost as much as the notion of Ebonics. :confused1

"Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse.", Larry R. Peterson, Ph.D. 1997.

"In early American Colonial times, a man and woman were considered married if they simply said they were.", Janet I. Tu, Journalist, 2008.

I could come up with more, but I'm lazy. The point is that the definition of marriage as change through out history and will continue to due so. Additionally, it may be apparent that the traditional 'man & woman' definition has defined the union of marriage for procreative reasons, it doesn't preclude fairies.

A justice of the peace married my wife and I, be your definition we're not 'really' married. . .

Being an english major, you should be able to appreciate the dynamic nature of our language and how it's changed over time.

 

[ZomBrady]

Sometimes I hate living in CA. Ironically Clinton (the biggest liberal of them all) signed the Defense of Marriage Act which federally defines marriage as that between a MAN and a WOMAN. CA is once again thinking that they are their country. Let alone the legislation that has already been passed as already sated in a previous post. I don't get it. Honestly are they even steps back anymore?
BTW I don't think they should be married. Marriage is a religious term and last I checked no religion allows gays to get married. I have no problem with a civil union or whatever the queers want to call it.

See my previous post. . . .

 

[buschwhaked]

Sometimes I hate living in CA. Ironically Clinton (the biggest liberal of them all) signed the Defense of Marriage Act which federally defines marriage as that between a MAN and a WOMAN.

She also voted for the invasion of Iraq, had a shot and a beer, and developed some sort of accent meant to appeal to "the people." She is the worst political panderer (is that a word?) one could imagine.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

So much for our democracy

We are a Constitutional Republic.....not a democracy.

 

[ZomBrady]

She also voted for the invasion of Iraq, had a shot and a beer, and developed some sort of accent meant to appeal to "the people." She is the worst political panderer (is that a word?) one could imagine.

Yes it is a word, and yes she is pure concentrated EVIL and she most be stopped. . .