Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I mean any gay that tries to explain that away is being illogical themselves, think about it, if it were meant to be for gays to be married how come they cannot reproduce? Or why don't we only have men living on this planet or only women living on this planet mating among one another getting married and reproducing? I would love to have a homosexual explain that. Because they cannot.

I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. We have no intention of ever reproducing. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to be married? Our marriage had nothing to do with children and everything to do with love, companionship and stability.

[Danno 1,228]

I mean any gay that tries to explain that away is being illogical themselves, think about it, if it were meant to be for gays to be married how come they cannot reproduce? Or why don't we only have men living on this planet or only women living on this planet mating among one another getting married and reproducing? I would love to have a homosexual explain that. Because they cannot.

I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. We have no intention of ever reproducing. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to be married? Our marriage had nothing to do with children and everything to do with love, companionship and stability.

I think the reasoning goes like this;

A hammers primary function is to apply blunt force, sure it can be useful for some other things but

those are not what it was designed for.

Marriage IS FOR YOU but was not designed for your case.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The debate never advances, it's always about NARROW MINDED people focused on extending Marriage rights to a select few..... those who believe marriage is between two people.

They will gladly allow gays to marry and be considered a legal union but what about others who want to wed multiple persons, don't they have a "right" to decide for themselves how their marriage is constructed too?

If you're going to act progressive.... at least be consistent with everyones rights.

As counter arguments go. The whole multiple marriage thing is a bit of a red herring. Not a position that's been very well thought through.

[Danno 1,228]

The debate never advances, it's always about NARROW MINDED people focused on extending Marriage rights to a select few..... those who believe marriage is between two people.

They will gladly allow gays to marry and be considered a legal union but what about others who want to wed multiple persons, don't they have a "right" to decide for themselves how their marriage is constructed too?

If you're going to act progressive.... at least be consistent with everyones rights.

As counter arguments go. The whole multiple marriage thing is a bit of a red herring. Not a position that's been very well thought through.

wow, that's a kinda lame counter-point PD, I'm sure you can do better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you say so. I mean its not like I haven't said many many times why multiple marriage is a stupid argument to bring up in relation to homosexuality

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

I mean any gay that tries to explain that away is being illogical themselves, think about it, if it were meant to be for gays to be married how come they cannot reproduce? Or why don't we only have men living on this planet or only women living on this planet mating among one another getting married and reproducing? I would love to have a homosexual explain that. Because they cannot.

I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. We have no intention of ever reproducing. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to be married? Our marriage had nothing to do with children and everything to do with love, companionship and stability.

I think the reasoning goes like this;

A hammers primary function is to apply blunt force, sure it can be useful for some other things but

those are not what it was designed for.

Marriage IS FOR YOU but was not designed for your case.

well heck, i thought you was gonna suggest she smack her husband in the nuts with a hammer.

[Danno 1,228]

I mean any gay that tries to explain that away is being illogical themselves, think about it, if it were meant to be for gays to be married how come they cannot reproduce? Or why don't we only have men living on this planet or only women living on this planet mating among one another getting married and reproducing? I would love to have a homosexual explain that. Because they cannot.

I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. We have no intention of ever reproducing. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to be married? Our marriage had nothing to do with children and everything to do with love, companionship and stability.

I think the reasoning goes like this;

A hammers primary function is to apply blunt force, sure it can be useful for some other things but

those are not what it was designed for.

Marriage IS FOR YOU but was not designed for your case.

well heck, i thought you was gonna suggest she smack her husband in the nuts with a hammer.

Since she said the marriage" had nothing to do with children"..... it's possible she already did.

[Jasman0717 9]

What's Sulu going to do

he better fire his photon torpedoes as fast as he can.

At his age he doesn't have too many left

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I mean any gay that tries to explain that away is being illogical themselves, think about it, if it were meant to be for gays to be married how come they cannot reproduce? Or why don't we only have men living on this planet or only women living on this planet mating among one another getting married and reproducing? I would love to have a homosexual explain that. Because they cannot.

I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. We have no intention of ever reproducing. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to be married? Our marriage had nothing to do with children and everything to do with love, companionship and stability.

I think the reasoning goes like this;

A hammers primary function is to apply blunt force, sure it can be useful for some other things but

those are not what it was designed for.

Marriage IS FOR YOU but was not designed for your case.

well heck, i thought you was gonna suggest she smack her husband in the nuts with a hammer.

Since she said the marriage" had nothing to do with children"..... it's possible she already did.

Nope, we just don't have ANY parental instincts!

[peejay 327]

Marriage is between a man and woman. Period, gays need to realize that fact and settle for a civil partnership at best.

And you would make Jesus Christ sad!

F!xx0rd those for you.

Seriously though, homosexuals are human beings. Just because they feel love for the same sex you're saying that they should have lesser rights than a heterosexual person?

They have all the rights as anyone else. They are free to marry, but not a member of the same sex. Why? Because marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman (along with a few other societal caveats). Anything else is is something else. Homosexuality is not illegal in the USA.

Homosexual parity with heterosexuals is not culturally acceptable to the vast majority of America. Neither is polygamy. Societies have the right to determine societal norms and values that are in the best interests of their society.

Otherwise marriage just becomes the lowest common denominator that anyone deems it to be. The vast majority of Americans want limits and boundries of what marriage is (i.e.: between one man and one woman with several other cultural and societal limits).

[HAL 9000 96]

This debate never advances. Its the same old closet homophobia, clinging to flawed preconceptions about what is or isn't "natural", using dubious ideology to create spurious definitions about marriage and throwing in over the top and meaningless comParisons to justify it all.

Exactly.

Furthermore- besides the whole point of imposing definitions of one thing over another from one group over another there remains the issue in the OP.

There probably should not be an ex post facto nulification of legally recognized procedures. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent that most definitely will not stand the constitutional test while people's brains catch up to the times from the 1950s.

Also apparent are the rapid recursion to slippery slope arguments that go nowhere really fast.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For those interested...

Carolene Products and the various levels of Equal Protection scrutiny

Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence stems from footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), a Commerce Clause and substantive due process case. In 1937, the Court (in what was called the "switch in time that saved nine") had loosened its rules for deciding whether Congress could regulate certain commercial activities. In discussing the new presumption of constitutionality that the Court would apply to economic legislation, Justice Harlan Stone wrote:

[P]rejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.

[18]

Thus were born the "more searching" levels of scrutiny—"strict" and "intermediate"—with which the Court would examine legislation directed at racial minorities and women. Although the Court first articulated a "strict scrutiny" standard for laws based on race-based distinctions in Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Court did not apply strict scrutiny, by that name, until the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia. Intermediate scrutiny did not command the approbation of a majority of the Court until the 1976 case of Craig v. Boren.

The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

• Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
• Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest^[19].
• Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

Although in 1985 the court in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. held mentally retarded persons were deemed to be subject to a "rational basis" test, in invalidating seemingly rational zoning laws and land use restrictions, many assert that the court introduced an "enhanced" rational basis test that required the state to show more than a facially valid law and instead to balance the community's needs against the needs of the disabled.^[20]

There is, arguably, a fourth level of scrutiny for equal protection cases. In United States v. Virginia Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg eschewed the language of intermediate scrutiny for sex-based discrimination and instead demanded that litigants articulate an "exceedingly persuasive" argument to justify this kind of discrimination. Whether this was simply a restatement of the doctrine of intermediate scrutiny or whether it created a new level of scrutiny between the intermediate and strict standards is unclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[Hannah+Vito 0]

I don't agree with prop 8 or the idea of nulifiying the marriages that were already perfomed. and in my opinon by disallowing same sex couples, the right to a legal union of sorts does stop them from having some rights that hetrosexual couples, have, I am thinking such as if one of my parents died the other other is automatically and legally next of kin, their possestions automatically go to the other and any desissions that are needed to be made which require next of kin to do, no one can usurp (spelling?) the remaining parent and take over, hell even my aunt and uncle before they married after 14yrs would have proberbly had the same rights before marraige because legally they were as good as, but could the same be said for same sex couples? and i'm talking without doing power of attourney or last will and testiment? i just dont get how another person living up the road how they want to live privatly (being homosexual) could affect me unless i wanted it to? why can't they legally have their relationship acknowledged, if it's just the title that bothers people why didn't they petition to have the title changed?

we have had same sex "marraige" legally in uk for a while now and in the begining i didn't understand why they were insistant and made it very clear that it was called a "civil union" and not marriage when it seemed to have all the legal benifis of a marraige. after watching this prop 8 saga i now begin to understand why. the church can't complain about the whole making marriage seem less important because legally its not a marriage.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

This debate never advances. Its the same old closet homophobia, clinging to flawed preconceptions about what is or isn't "natural", using dubious ideology to create spurious definitions about marriage and throwing in over the top and meaningless comParisons to justify it all.

You think the same about incestuous marriage. Who's closed minded?

[Hannah+Vito 0]

but to call it a marriage is an assault on anyone that is hetrosexual and a married man and woman.

as an anyone who will be in a hetrosexual marriage soon how is this suposed to be an assault on me?

Edited December 21, 2008 by Hannah+Vito