There is no slippery slope between gays and beastiality nor pedophilia.

A Axe on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I don’t know…this looks pretty slippery to me.

1. So what happens if a married gay couple moves from CA to a state that doesn’t endorse gay marriage?

ummmmm… that’s not the issue at hand. at all. it’s a california state court.

How is this issue not of immediate importance? If a gay couple marries in CA and moves to MO, then this issue is quite pressing since MO would not recognize their marriage as legal. None of the businesses, insurance companies, nor the state itself would honor any of their marriage rights.

nevertheless, this is a california state court ruling that interprets the california state constitution. therefore, what other states endorse or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

2. How many churches are going to marry gay couples, even though it’s against Christian doctrine?
also completely irrelevant.

To you, maybe this is irrelevant. To the Church, this has serious ramifications. Institutionalizing sin and deleting central messages of the Bible to fit human desires is completely counter to whom God is.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION. IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS. PERIOD. you are entitled to believe what you believe, but the court has no responsibility to agree with you or to uphold your religious views.

4. What is the proposed end state of the liberal social agenda?
a suggest you take a deep breath or 10 and calm down.

Please refrain from using ad hominem fallacies. They serve no constructive purpose. As a citizen of the United States, I demand to know what the proposed end state of any socially liberal (or conservative, for that matter) politician is for this this country. In light of this ruling, I’d like to know what else they’d like to change.

“ad hominem fallacies”? no no, this is ad hominem:”you’re a paranoid bigot”. how’s that?

no fallacy there, either. :-)

Send_Me on May 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM

right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM

is that supposed to be an argument? i hope not.

Marriage laws have existed in California since 1850 and they just found out now that they are unconstitutional as practiced. They’ve been wrong for over 150 years and no one noticed?

Nosferightu on May 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM

are you serious? There were slavery laws and anti-black laws on the books for over 75 and 100 years respectively before someone ‘noticed’ that they were wrong. So are you saying that civil rights guarantees were unwarranted because it took a long time for people to recognize that black people are, in fact, just as human as white people?

Your argument is silly.

are you sure about that???

Yes.

obviously it does. ‘provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare’ thats what the government was established for.

False. The government was established to protect man’s inalienable rights. “Welfare” is not a right. The government has no duty and no power to promote general welfare. That’s a Socialist idea, and all who advocate it are de facto Socialists and enemies of freedom.

The concept of “government marriage” in the United States is less than 100 years old. It was introduced in the 1920’s as a way of preventing interracial marriages.

are you sure about that???

DESCRIPTION: Chapter 7, Laws of 1640: An ACT touching marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1640
NOTES: Marriage was allowed only after publication of banns three times; or oath was made at the county court that neither part was an apprentice, etc., related, or under government of parents and a certificate was issued by the County Court of such oath.
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives

http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000099/html/t99.html

Ancient Rome had laws governing marriage, but somehow america did not? come on.

Nowhere in there does it say that the government has the power to promote the general welfare

obviously it does. ‘provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare’ thats what the government was established for.

“General welfare” authorizes socialism in all its health-care-providing, anti-Capitalist marriage-regulating forms

you really need to take history 101, and english comprehension 101

we’ve had it wrong for thousands of year, I’m so glad wise (huh?) people like you have come along to set us straight!!

The concept of “government marriage” in the United States is less than 100 years old. It was introduced in the 1920’s as a way of preventing interracial marriages.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nowhere in there does it say that the government has the power to promote the general welfare. It’s merely listed of one of the potential benefits of having a Constitution. The powers of the government are specifically enumerated later on. And “promoting the general welfare” is not one of them. If it were, what would be the point of listing any powers? “General welfare” authorizes socialism in all its health-care-providing, anti-Capitalist marriage-regulating forms.

1. So what happens if a married gay couple moves from CA to a state that doesn’t endorse gay marriage?

ummmmm… that’s not the issue at hand. at all. it’s a california state court.

How is this issue not of immediate importance? If a gay couple marries in CA and moves to MO, then this issue is quite pressing since MO would not recognize their marriage as legal. None of the businesses, insurance companies, nor the state itself would honor any of their marriage rights.

2. How many churches are going to marry gay couples, even though it’s against Christian doctrine?
also completely irrelevant.

To you, maybe this is irrelevant. To the Church, this has serious ramifications. Institutionalizing sin and deleting central messages of the Bible to fit human desires is completely counter to whom God is.

4. What is the proposed end state of the liberal social agenda?
a suggest you take a deep breath or 10 and calm down.

Please refrain from using ad hominem fallacies. They serve no constructive purpose. As a citizen of the United States, I demand to know what the proposed end state of any socially liberal (or conservative, for that matter) politician is for this this country. In light of this ruling, I’d like to know what else they’d like to change.

So two women/men living together is the same of having multiple wives, having an animal as a wife/husband, or wanting to marry a child?

If all parties involved in a polygamous relationship are consenting, why not? If, based upon age of consent laws/parental discretion laws, an old person wishes to marry a young person, then why not? If someone wishes to marry their pet, why not? If marriage is nothing more than a contract between consenting parties, then why can’t people “marry” whomever or whatever they want? That is my point.

People like you are pathetic and disgusting. There is no slippery slope between gays and beastiality nor pedophilia.

Please refrain from using ad hominem fallicies. They serve no point. The “slippery slope,” as I stated above, is this: if marriage is nothing more than a contract between people to guarantee certain financial and medical rights, then why can one not marry whomever or whatever you want? Or am I not understanding what it is that gay couples are seeking?

As for this helping Republicans in California, I wouldn’t bet on it. It may give them a slight edge, but in a state so overwhelmingly Democrat, a few free percentage points aren’t going to be all that much help.

Decisions about unconstitutional laws? Um, yeah, they should decide.

oh yes all wisdom and knowledge resides in those who don black robes, and jack-boots. so they should tell us po dumb folks how to live.

Of course not. Marriage is a personal commitment. It’s not any of the government’s business.

we’ve had it wrong for thousands of year, I’m so glad wise (huh?) people like you have come along to set us straight!!

they’re essentially arguing that the Government has a job to promote general social welfare,

I wonder where ANYONE would get an idea about that at???

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

since the constitution means whatever judges say it means, then we can throw the ‘general welfare’ part out!!

McCain, who last week decried judicial activism, “doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions,” a spokesman added.

Decisions about unconstitutional laws? Um, yeah, they should decide.

States would do best to leave the term “marriage” as an exclusive province of the churches and have all couples sign civil-union contracts instead, and let the individuals determine whether they feel “married” or not.

Bingo. That’s my solution. The crazy socialists (CRC, Focus on the Family) who think the government has a duty to promote monogamous Christian heterosexual unions won’t be happy, but I think it’s the right decision. Would any married readers be horrified if they found out that their marriage paperwork didn’t go through? Would they consider themselves to not be married? Of course not. Marriage is a personal commitment. It’s not any of the government’s business.

This issue really tweaks me, because I come from a Conservative background, but the arguments against gay marriage are socialist in nature. They’re about how “one man, one woman” is best for “society.” About how gay marriage would “ruin” marriage — not in the individual sense of “gay marriage ruined this heterosexual marriage” but in the sense of heterosexual marriage as some sort of “it takes a village” community pool that the gays would be “contaminating.” What’s worse, I’ve called Conservatives on this, telling them that they’re essentially arguing that the Government has a job to promote general social welfare, and they sort of shrug and accept it. If I’m not fighting socialists on the Left, I’m fighting them on the Right, it would seem.

In truth, constitutional amendments usually make for bad policy; they act as sledgehammers when scalpels do better, and they’re difficult to reverse when necessary.

And they should never, ever be used to take freedoms away. Constitutions are meant to shackle the government, not the people! Sanctioning governmental discrimination in the constitution is a travesty.

But if we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow fetal bestiality and half the nation will be having sex with feline fetuses. Our great nation will be clawed apart.

thuja on May 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM

I’m really for keeping the government out of our bedroomas AND barns.
/sarc

It is true, however, that if monosexual marriage is “legal” then it will be hard to refuse multi-partner marriages as well. For example, if two men marry and then a woman acts as surrogate to carry a baby of which one of the males is the natural father and then all three think they should be a “married family” why would one exclude the birth mother?

The long term solution is to get the government out of the marriage business; let people make the social contracts they desire and engage in cultish ceremonies if they wish. The government does have an obligation to protect the innocent, the children, but they can do this without sanctioning marriage.

conservatives supported the overruling of 187

Uh, guess again.
Proposition 187 was written and backed by California conservatives. I know. I was there.

It denied government benefits to illegal aliens.

and to all of you folks on here who are trying to argue that “sexual orientation” isn’t immutable and therefore is just a “lifestyle choice” (which you obviously think is sinful, against god’s will, etc., ad nauseum…) and shouldn’t equated with race, gender, or other differences that are protected under civil rights laws:

why don’t you go ahead and identiy the ‘gay gene’??

until you do your arguments is irrelevent.

which it would not given the huge Dhimmicrat majorities–it would be impossible to get it ratified by three-quarters of the states. Game-Set-Match.

bet it would pass. look at the the states that have done their own constitutional amendments against gay ‘marriage’ and even liberal CA passed an anti-gay ‘marriage’ law by 61% in 2000, watch it get a bigger majority this time.

You stated that higher court Justices were “unelected, unaccountable dictators;” this is entirely untrue — they are on a ballot

and its absolutely true. they are appointed not elected, how hard is this?

they have retention elections, but they are not directly elected.

This is a battle over trivial nonsense important only by those who think that the constitution and law code should be subservient to some ancient book of mythology. There are more important battles to wage.

Annar on May 17, 2008 at 7:40 AM

But if we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow fetal bestiality and half the nation will be having sex with feline fetuses. Our great nation will be clawed apart.

and just to avoid any stupid accusations and ad hominems from the get-go: no, i am not gay.

homesickamerican on May 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM

You may not be gay, but you do appear to be a man. Many women do find sexual orientation to be a lifestyle choice. The now heterosexual matron/former undergrad lesbian is a common social phenomenon. It may only be for men that sexual orientation is in any practical sense immutable.

This is a battle over trivial nonsense important only by those who think that the constitution and law code should be subservient to some ancient book of mythology. There are more important battles to wage.

One can also NOT accept that, my friend.