Prop 8 Upheld in Cali Supreme Court
-
mz. said:
I've seen the light!You lifted Cals balls and there it was!!!!
(sorry)
BTW isn't it ironic how the "will of the people " shifts from bad to good depending on what you want?
WSS
You lifted Cals balls and there it was!!!!
"Seeing the light" and "looking directly into the light" are different things.
BTW isn't it ironic how the "will of the people " shifts from bad to good depending on what you want?
I'm not claiming the vote was unfair or anything, Steve. The people have had their say, and I happen to disagree with the way it went down. So what.
-
So they followed the rule of law, get over it. For once a judge actually followed the state of California's constitution. Unlike what we are getting ready to see when Obama appoints Sotomayor to the supremes.
There are greater things in life to bitch about and this is not one of them.
-
Society has a right to preserve the proper, natural and Godly definition of marriage.
Between a man and a woman.
Not m-m,w-w,m-sheep,f-orangutan,m-two w, w - 2 m,
OR w or m and two giraffes...
OR three m or three w...
get a grip. Society spoke and so did the Cali Supreme Court.
Game over, God and Californians WIN.
N - S attracts, S - N attracts.
Like I said - natural, universal law.
Society has the RIGHT to protect itself from serious abuse.
-
Marriage is a contract. That is all the government should worry about. If a church doesn't want to marry gays, fine, they don't have to. But legal marriage is only a contract between two adults. You wont see people marrying orangutans or sheep because those animals don't have the right to sign a contract.
-
Marriage is an officially and lawfully recognized union of a man and a woman.
It is not just a "contract". It's a natural, Godly bond with official acknowlegement
from the state.
Gay marriage - not natural, not Godly.
N and S poles attract.
Natural law.
But to try to justify N-N or S-S attractions is not.
Doesn't naturally exist in science.
Male-female magnetism.
A looooot of folks in liberal goofy California agree, and so does their
Supreme Court.
Real marriage got law.
-
Government is secular (is supposed to be). Godly has nothing to do with it.
And if homosexuality is the same as N-N or S-S, and it can't happen in nature... then why does it happen in nature? By your logic their wouldn't be homosexuals, but there definitely are.
-
Why are there unnatural anomalies?
Look at DNA, look at the complexity of several factors
of human self-actualization.
It isn't cut and dried like my "magnetic" analogy...
but it justifies not accepting anomalies as standard,
normal and Godly and universal.
God has a lot to do with it, it's on coins, etc, and
this country was created as being influenced by God, in terms
of inalienable rights, most notably, freedom of religion.
The separation of church and state does not mean the state
can infringe on the rights of Americans to express and follow their religious beliefs
and activities. It just means the state cannot impose a religion on society.
But God can be deemed Holy and Omnipresent etc, in terms of many different religions.
God has everything to do with it.
-
And when did they have rights to have Adam marry Steve? or whatever they want.
That's something a Retarded 4th grader would say. Grow up.
Marriage is an officially and lawfully recognized union of a man and a woman.
N and S poles attract.
This example you bring up again and again is so pathetic.
And I thought you rejected science...
-
For all of those 18,000 queer couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
Oh boy' they will breath a sigh of relief and have another parade.
Sounds like Prop 8 was put into place just in time.
I wonder if the people who advertised the names of all who donated money for the prop 8 will be held liable for googling their names and addresses and putting them on the internet so they would be harassed.
what a vindictive bunch of people, and all they say is their about free love.
-
The legal view of marriage and the religious view of marriage are seperate and different and need to stay that way.
-
The legal view of marriage and the religious view of marriage are seperate and different and need to stay that way.
The legal view of marriage and the religious view of marriage are seperate and different and need to stay that way.
So.
Couples sign a partnership agreement and perform a ceremony in whatever church they choose that accepts their choice.
If the Roman Catholic church says no too bad.
Go to Universal Life.
Problem solved?
WSS
-
They can go to Sweden... it's legal there, I think
Say, we haven't heard Heck whine about California being
a right wing attack machine.
Surprise !
EVEN in CALIFORNIA - they voted down "gay marriage".
EVEN the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AGREED.
mz the pussy, you're just wrong on this issue, and I still wish I could unthank your post
with the SLUR "Retarded" in it.
LD and ED and MH kids do NOT deserve to be held up to ridicule
as to slur someone you disagree with.
You should know better than that, seriously..
-
Government is secular (is supposed to be). Godly has nothing to do with it.
And if homosexuality is the same as N-N or S-S, and it can't happen in nature... then why does it happen in nature? By your logic their wouldn't be homosexuals, but there definitely are.
Government is secular (is supposed to be). Godly has nothing to do with it.
And if homosexuality is the same as N-N or S-S, and it can't happen in nature... then why does it happen in nature? By your logic their wouldn't be homosexuals, but there definitely are.
Our government isn't intended to be void of God. Ask the founding fathers if they though homo was cool.
-
Government is secular (is supposed to be). Godly has nothing to do with it.
And if homosexuality is the same as N-N or S-S, and it can't happen in nature... then why does it happen in nature? By your logic their wouldn't be homosexuals, but there definitely are.
Our government isn't intended to be void of God. Ask the founding fathers if they though homo was cool.
-
One of the main issues I have with amendments specifically banning gay marriage is that it is using constitutions to deny or take away rights. I think constitutions should be there to preserve them.
One of the main issues I have with amendments specifically banning gay marriage is that it is using constitutions to deny or take away rights. I think constitutions should be there to preserve them.
Looking at the wording only, that's exactly what they are doing. Whether the right of marriage to exist solely between a man & a woman is a "right," that's another argument.
Religiously, spiritually, I agree with the decision, but politically & matter-of-factly, I'd prefer the government not have any jurisdiction over the union between my wife and I nor any other two consenting adults.
It also makes sense, to me, that homosexuals should receive health insurance via a working partner, and should be able to file taxes jointly, I just don't know how you make that work logistically w/o allowing civil union (which is what I prefer the gov't to refer to my relationship with my wife as). And again, I don't condone the lifestyle, and will teach my children that it is abnormal, but that they should treat them with the same respect as any other stranger/adult/acquaintance.
I think it's a ridiculous notion to define who I am using my sexuality as the forerunner, and find it equally ridiculous when homosexuals do the same. You want it to be a norm in society? Make it a norm within yourself first.
-
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login