Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hugh_Hoy

California's Gay Marriage Ban Upheld by State Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Comparing homosexuals marrying each other to interracial marriages is hardly the same thing. Marriage by tradition (if not law) has always been between opposite sexes. The interracial marriage laws forbid otherwise perfectly legal marriages by members of different races. Gay marriage requires a redefinition of the term "marriage". That is what bothers its opponents. Still, society changes with time and it will not doubt some day become accepted as meaning a lifelong (supposedly) commitment between two individuals, regardless of gender. Obviously, at the present time is does not - as the California vote shows.

 

Notice there is no opposition to gays living as a couple with full legal rights under any other name except marriage.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.k. so gays can't marry...now will someone please tell me how I /we are any better off as a nation? Are my taxes lower? am I safer? are we out of Iraq and Afghanistan? etc...?

 

 

As for the California proposition system, it is a joke! just look at Prop 13 and what that has turned into and caused. Under the current system, you'll never change it either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California has always been the land of the fruits and nuts. Just look at the state constitution. Whenever any section is changed, it is lined out and the new section written beneath it, which looks a right mess. Also, wasn't it California that started printing ballots and driver's licenses in exotic languages, simply some obscure Indian tribe of a few hundred people claimed they were being discriminated against by having to use English?

 

California is the state that gave us Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator George Murphy, UN Ambassador Shirley Temple Black ... and God help us ... Nancy Pelosi. It's not for nothing that California is called America's largest looney bin.

 

:dunno:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flash' date='

 

I'd amend that to make [b']MOST[/b] everything legal. Not murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc. But the 'vice' laws are complete bullshit in a free land of free people, consenting adults. And tax it for the benefit of all to pay for the things we want and need as a modern society: schools, roads, public transport, etc.

Cent

 

So, you are in favor "taxing" freedoms? ;)

 

HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't now? You have the freedom to get a job of your choosing, and the income of this is taxed. You have the freedom to buy what you want, and there are sales taxes on these products you buy.

 

I am in favor of taxing the income these presently illegal things produce, and which now is fueling the mafia and underground economy in the billions of dollars, that, once brought into the mainstream economy if they were legal would provide enormous tax income for the country. At the moment many of these things, prostitution, drugs, gambling, are illegal. Yet all of these things can be had if you want them, and the money paid for these things goes underground and is not taxed. How is that good? All of these things are victimless crimes, people choose and want to do these things.

 

Look, all these vices are illegal why? Tell me. Religious influence over the centuries? The alcohol industry's influence and meddling/lobbying has helped keep the drug laws from being repealed (pot, etc.), gambling laws are ridiculous. We stifle all others' freedoms because some people cannot control themselves when indulging in these so-called vices. It's moronic. Some people become obese because they cannot control their 'vice' of over-eating fatty foods. Now some numbnuts want to protect them by making certain foods/cooking oils etc illegal? If I have a shop that sells fries I cannot cook those fries in lard and sell them to the public one day/now? Come on, let's get real here.

 

All these laws to protect those that have no control over how they spend their money (gambling, prostitution etc) or damage their health (drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, etc)are counter-productive to society at large. And , many of these laws are holdovers from religious 'laws' (gambling, prostitution) that have no realistic reasons to be illegal.

 

Look at the indian tribes raking in the cash with their gambling casinos, and doing so in states where this is illegal and only legal for the tribes to do because they are on federal lands and not subject to the state's laws. It's stupid.

 

Look at the legal whorehouses in Nevada. Are there huge problems with these places (besides the pricing)? These well run and legal whorehouses should be allowed anywhere (with certain zoning restrictions). It's not, and wouldn't be, a problem for most, EXCEPT the religious loonies out there wanting to control what people can do with their lives and their sexual organs and money. Complete bullshit.

 

And, we waste millions ands billions of dollars trying to control these vices which the people obviously want. Millions spent on policing and imprisonment, and court costs etc, and for what? Nothing, that's what. A complete waste of time, energy, resources, and money going down the blackhole of the underground economy which could be taxed instead of fueling the big business of the criminal underground empires which run the illegal business of sex, drugs and gambling.

 

So, not taxing freedoms, but taxing the money these 'freedoms' would generate in the above ground economy if these certain things were not illegal.

 

Sorry, not up to form today, so if I am not clear in my writing blame the Dumb Cnut. We were out late last night and I am just now starting to become semi-alert. ;) :thumbup:

 

Cent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marijuana was only made an illegal drug some time after WWI. Before that it was legal.

 

About 10 or 12 years ago a friend bought a beautiful little paddlewheel river boat. (It had originally been used to haul barges on the Ohio River.) Since he is 1/4th Cherokee - and on the tribal rolls - I suggested we set up a gambling boat. Unfortunately, he wouldn't go for it. :(

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comparing homosexuals marrying each other to interracial marriages is hardly the same thing. Marriage by tradition (if not law) has always been between opposite sexes. The interracial marriage laws forbid otherwise perfectly legal marriages by members of different races. Gay marriage requires a redefinition of the term "marriage". That is what bothers its opponents. Still, society changes with time and it will not doubt some day become accepted as meaning a lifelong (supposedly) commitment between two individuals, regardless of gender. Obviously, at the present time is does not - as the California vote shows.

It IS the exact same thing, and the Bible-bangers use the exact same arguments to deny them their rights -- they're sub-human; God doesn't like it; I don't like it; the world will end; etc. Fuck the bigots.

 

Notice there is no opposition to gays living as a couple with full legal rights under any other name except marriage.

Bullshit. They do not want them to have the same rights. The fuckin' GOP just came out with the BS that it will cost us money from the tax incentives FFS. Of course the idiots failed to say how marriage as it is today does not do the same thing. Outlaw all marriage then, I say. Either every human gets it, or they don't. It is that simple.

 

Cheers,

SD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is defined as marriage has always changed. At one point multiple wives was considered normal. Three hundred years ago women were more or less chattel in marriage. Had little if any rights within a marriage. Marriage in 1809 and marriage in 2009 is not recognizable from a cultural or legal viewpoint.

 

At its core its always been between a man and a woman (women) but the vast changes in the institution and society makes marriage between same sexes a 'natural' progression in some places.

 

Marriage between races was outlawed in some states and based primarily on racism and cultural bias. Marriage between the same sex is also based on cultural/societal bias as well as religion with some. I believe the vast majority of those in opposition are not basing it on religious views but a personal bias from their cultural upbringing. I was the same. I was against it for a long time but being against I also conceded that it went against my belief in constitutional law. I'm still uncomfortable as hell with it from a personal point of view but can't deny others rights that I believe are constitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gays are organized enough to make a case of it in the US Supreme Court...if they will hear the case. Who knows, but if they are serious and have $$$ they can try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect the Supremes to say it is a matter for the states to decide. But who knows. Depends on how liberal the court is when the case gets there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would expect the Supremes to say it is a matter for the states to decide. But who knows. Depends on how liberal the court is when the case gets there.

 

I agree. It should be noted, however, that Federal law already defines "marriage" as being between a man and a woman. Accordingly, the Supreme Court would have overturn that law also. In any event, it will probably take years for this to get heard/ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

 

HH

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...