Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[HAL 9000 96]

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

This says it all right here. The amendment process CANNOT be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification. How much clearer can this be?

The state constitution AND the US constitution call for fundamental rights. You CANNOT take those away willy-nilly. Period. End of story.

It will be an uphill battle, but I hope in the end the fundamental rights of all will be upheld. This is like saying "hey I think I'll take away the marriage rights of inter-racial couples." Whether anyone likes it or not, these people were LEGALLY joined in marriage. Legally.

And I'm sorry, but I'm a heterosexual woman married to a heterosexual man and I don't feel like my marriage has been assaulted. That's plain ridiculous.

But people will later push to marry goats! The buck has to stop somewhere!!!

Yeah... it can stop with people trying to impose their personal beliefs on others in the matter of monogamous marriage.

[Amby 490]

I want to marry a goat!

[Danno 1,228]

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Perhaps one of the Great Liberal Chief Supreme Court Justices might have an opinion?

"Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western Civilization," Burger wrote. "Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards."

-Chief Justice Warren Burger

Ps: He also noted that Sir William Blackstone "described 'the infamous crime against nature' as an offense of 'deeper malignity' than rape, a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,' and 'a crime not fit to be named.' To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

---------

Need I remind you this same Warren Burger brought about Roe v Wade, invalidated ALL DEATH PENALTy convictions, enforced Busing and a number of other left-wing style cases.

He was no stranger to granting "civil Rights" but for some reason, he failed to see the "Rights" you claim are obvious.

[HAL 9000 96]

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Perhaps one of the Great Liberal Chief Supreme Court Justices might have an opinion?

"Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western Civilization," Burger wrote. "Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards."

-Chief Justice Warren Burger

Ps: He also noted that Sir William Blackstone "described 'the infamous crime against nature' as an offense of 'deeper malignity' than rape, a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,' and 'a crime not fit to be named.' To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

---------

Need I remind you this same Warren Burger brought about Roe v Wade, invalidated ALL DEATH PENALTy convictions, enforced Busing and a number of other left-wing style cases.

He was no stranger to granting "civil Rights" but for some reason, he failed to see the "Rights" you claim are obvious.

Right. Because once again- its a matter of one group of monogamous individuals imposing their will on another group of monogamous individuals. No goats, no children, no heterosexuals being buttsecked by homosexuals, no anything else. Just some having the (thanks) antiquated idea that they can impose their will upon others just because its a firmly rooted religious doctrine that is nevertheless not a central dogma within their own faith.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Perhaps one of the Great Liberal Chief Supreme Court Justices might have an opinion?

"Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western Civilization," Burger wrote. "Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards."

-Chief Justice Warren Burger

Ps: He also noted that Sir William Blackstone "described 'the infamous crime against nature' as an offense of 'deeper malignity' than rape, a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,' and 'a crime not fit to be named.' To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

---------

Need I remind you this same Warren Burger brought about Roe v Wade, invalidated ALL DEATH PENALTy convictions, enforced Busing and a number of other left-wing style cases.

He was no stranger to granting "civil Rights" but for some reason, he failed to see the "Rights" you claim are obvious.

I don't think anyone has denied that the rejection of homosexuality is rooted in religious ideologies. The point surely is whether a multi-cultural society that accommodates many faiths and beliefs should be railroaded by one particular set of religious values to the detriment of others in society.

As to the quote - that's hardly a legal or an empirical opinion. Not unlike James Watson's comments about blacks being of lowered intelligence.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

I want to marry a goat!

bosco is gonna be heartbroken.

[peejay 327]

When society at large submits to the lowest common denominator imposed on it by fiat, then society slides ever so deeper into the wasteland of the abyss.

When the societal and cultural norm embraces two lesbians getting married, picking sperm out of a catalog, and making baby like cattle at a breeder farm...we have hit the lowest common denominator. Heather's Two Mommies? Welcome to the vomit party. Just because it can be done...doesn't mean it should be done. And just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Marriage is between a man and woman.

I think you got that wrong.

Marriage is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Men and women have civil unions, not marriages.

Silly zqtqt.

[Amby 490]

I want to marry a goat!

bosco is gonna be heartbroken.

I don't want to marry a goat...I want bosco

[pedroh 21]

When society at large submits to the lowest common denominator imposed on it by fiat, then society slides ever so deeper into the wasteland of the abyss.

When the societal and cultural norm embraces two lesbians getting married, picking sperm out of a catalog, and making baby like cattle at a breeder farm...we have hit the lowest common denominator. Heather's Two Mommies? Welcome to the vomit party. Just because it can be done...doesn't mean it should be done. And just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it.

why is same-sex marriage the lowest common denominator? that implies that all homosexuals are some sort of perverted-no moral people just because they happen to like the same sex.. why does it have to be 'low'? homosexual means that automatically that person has no values? no moral? can't do any good to society because he/she likes his/her own sex? I think that's an arrogant statement..

what about a man that beats his wife.. is he better than a gay person? just because he married a woman?

[jundp 191]

When society at large submits to the lowest common denominator imposed on it by fiat, then society slides ever so deeper into the wasteland of the abyss.

When the societal and cultural norm embraces two lesbians getting married, picking sperm out of a catalog, and making baby like cattle at a breeder farm...we have hit the lowest common denominator. Heather's Two Mommies? Welcome to the vomit party. Just because it can be done...doesn't mean it should be done. And just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it.

why is same-sex marriage the lowest common denominator? that implies that all homosexuals are some sort of perverted-no moral people just because they happen to like the same sex.. why does it have to be 'low'? homosexual means that automatically that person has no values? no moral? can't do any good to society because he/she likes his/her own sex? I think that's an arrogant statement..

what about a man that beats his wife.. is he better than a gay person? just because he married a woman?

According to the people who believe that all gays are perverted and want to have sex with children...yes.

I especially like this phrase "just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it." Yet, I suppose it's okay to embrace all the fundamentalist nuts who want everyone to follow in step with their line of thinking?

[Caladan 19]

I just can't imagine the stress of having one's marriage annulled by the popular vote.

[pedroh 21]

When society at large submits to the lowest common denominator imposed on it by fiat, then society slides ever so deeper into the wasteland of the abyss.

When the societal and cultural norm embraces two lesbians getting married, picking sperm out of a catalog, and making baby like cattle at a breeder farm...we have hit the lowest common denominator. Heather's Two Mommies? Welcome to the vomit party. Just because it can be done...doesn't mean it should be done. And just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it.

why is same-sex marriage the lowest common denominator? that implies that all homosexuals are some sort of perverted-no moral people just because they happen to like the same sex.. why does it have to be 'low'? homosexual means that automatically that person has no values? no moral? can't do any good to society because he/she likes his/her own sex? I think that's an arrogant statement..

what about a man that beats his wife.. is he better than a gay person? just because he married a woman?

According to the people who believe that all gays are perverted and want to have sex with children...yes.

I especially like this phrase "just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it." Yet, I suppose it's okay to embrace all the fundamentalist nuts who want everyone to follow in step with their line of thinking?

yea, because if you accept gays, you suddenly will feel an unstoppable urge to go fukc a goat or some other animal...turn your kids gay, and become some sort of inmoral beast

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When society at large submits to the lowest common denominator imposed on it by fiat, then society slides ever so deeper into the wasteland of the abyss.

When the societal and cultural norm embraces two lesbians getting married, picking sperm out of a catalog, and making baby like cattle at a breeder farm...we have hit the lowest common denominator. Heather's Two Mommies? Welcome to the vomit party. Just because it can be done...doesn't mean it should be done. And just because somebody has the bad taste to actually do it is absolutely no reason to embrace it.

why is same-sex marriage the lowest common denominator? that implies that all homosexuals are some sort of perverted-no moral people just because they happen to like the same sex.. why does it have to be 'low'? homosexual means that automatically that person has no values? no moral? can't do any good to society because he/she likes his/her own sex? I think that's an arrogant statement..

what about a man that beats his wife.. is he better than a gay person? just because he married a woman?

I was wondering about that. Its certainly not a statement that can really be explained outside of homophobic prejudice.

[pedroh 21]

because one thing is to say marriage is between a man and a woman just because.. and it's another to say marriage it's between a man and a woman, because if not, it's some sort of evil abomination.. that is too arrogant IMO, ok if you dont want 2 guys getting married, but it's too judgemental to say they shouldn't get married because its immoral blablabla.. we're no one to judge if another person is immoral or not because of sexual preferences..

i also think that the concept of marriage for conception and population reasons is outdated, there are many married couples that don't want any kids, that basically discredits that argument..

oh... I've been defending gays.. I feel like I should look for goat pics and get aroused with them