CA Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

[LibertyVox]

It is not wrong to have sex for pleasure if it is between husband and wife (Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with unless there are intervening circumstances), the Song of Solomon makes that clear. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to have sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse (or becoming your spouse).

That may all well be true. But you have to come around the lowest common denominator that binds us: keep the fucking govt. out of it. A government issuing marriage licenses???

 

[American Nationalist]

This is a Constitutionally sound decision, in line with the 14th Amendment. We need to keep religion out of civil marriage ceremonies. And if Christians feel so strongly about gays getting civil marriage licenses, they should push to take the State out of marriage to begin with, not implement state enforced bigotry through mob rule like in Prop 8

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You seem to have it backwards, it is currently straight groups which receive group privilege.

Yes, and if they are going to provide it, it should be provided to ALL INDIVIDUALS equally, not just straight people, that is a group privilege.

I have it forwards. It is not the role of government to 'provide' marriage at all, let alone to groups using individualist talking points. There is no 'right' to marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. Adding to government privileges does not reduce the state, it further expands it.

Get government out of marriage, period. Not after a 'surge' from adding gay privileges to the mix. END privileges, shrink government now. No 'meantime,' NOW.

 

[RokiLothbard]

The problem comes when they force other private entities to "recognize" gaymarriage. And they will. Are you an employee who'd like to provide health insurance for spouses? Do you consider gay marriage to be an oxymoron? Tough shit. You will be PC or we will shoot you.

 

[dannno]

The problem comes when they force other private entities to "recognize" gaymarriage. And they will. Are you an employee who'd like to provide health insurance for spouses? Do you consider gay marriage to be an oxymoron? Tough shit. You will be PC or we will shoot you.

Well that's like saying we shouldn't legalize cannabis because some people who use cannabis might want to force everybody to use it.

 

[LibertyVox]

The problem comes when they force other private entities to "recognize" gaymarriage. And they will. Are you an employee who'd like to provide health insurance for spouses? Do you consider gay marriage to be an oxymoron? Tough shit. You will be PC or we will shoot you.

In either case, we should resist coercion. Two wrong don't make a right and inorder to prevent one wrong we shouldn't oppose a right.
I have become cynical about incrementalism seeing the hyppocroisy and so called "pragmatism", nevertheless I see it as one peaceful way to bring about organic changes in society.

As an example: many who support gay marriage, would be against polygamy or incest. Hyppocritical. But then again many "support" gay marriage out of psuedo-progressiveness of acceptance tolerance rather than the principle of the thing.

That's where the genius of Dr. Ron Paul is.

 

[Bruno]

No. The woman is under the headship of her father, but she is not property. The father only has veto authority. You can see that they are not property because the father has to specifically forbid the daughter from going through with a promise, but silence means that the daughter can fulfill the promise. Property must be specifically allowed to do something, and silence indicates being forbidden from doing something.

Thanks for clarifying.

It is not wrong to have sex for pleasure if it is between husband and wife (Biblically, you are married to whoever you first have sex with unless there are intervening circumstances), the Song of Solomon makes that clear. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to have sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse (or becoming your spouse).

The Bible is full of sexual strangeness, so I don't believe we should look there to enact laws that punish some for their sexual activities, and promote and enrich others for theirs.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm

That may all well be true. But you have to come around the lowest common denominator that binds us: keep the fucking govt. out of it. A government issuing marriage licenses???

But this is really the bottom line.

 

[American Nationalist]

Well that's like saying we shouldn't legalize cannabis because some people who use cannabis might want to force everybody to use it.

It is also like opposing Love V. Virginia because a company might have to recognize an interracial marriage. Of course companies should be able to set their own policies, but the state should not be able to enforce racism through force.

 

[zach]

Just remember that some people want to be happy without interfering with others, and wanting to be considered "equal" in the eyes of society and/or government is all that most (if not all) people want regardless of their labeling.

Not all non-straight people want to take the moral territory of the country and sodomize the Earth's christian churches, and not all straight people want to preserve the current status quo and make babies in front of gay people at pagan festivals either.

 

[LibertyVox]

Just remember that some people want to be happy without interfering with others, and wanting to be considered "equal" in the eyes of society and/or government is all that most (if not all) people want regardless of their labeling.

Not all non-straight people want to take the moral territory of the country and sodomize the Earth's christian churches, and not all straight people want to preserve the current status quo and make babies in front of gay people at pagan festivals either.

One shouldn't even have to say that...but I guess we need reminders from time to time.

 

[RokiLothbard]

Well that's like saying we shouldn't legalize cannabis because some people who use cannabis might want to force everybody to use it.

No it isn't. Smoking cannabis will get you put in jail. Being gay, and living together, and calling your parther yor husband wont. Name any substantive right/privilege that comes with being married and I have no problem with being for gay people having same right, and/or revoking the privilege (at least I haven't thought of any exceptions to this yet). Even if all that happened, this court decision would have been the same, and you'd still have PC types complaining ahout oppression. Because this isn't about tolerance, it is about forced-at-gunpoint acceptance.

 

[zach]

One shouldn't even have to say that...but I guess we need reminders from time to time.

We get so caught up with our beliefs and convictions that we don't listen to each other much anymore. :o

 

[Standing Like A Rock]

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.

Nailed it.

Just because the state wrongfully gives one group special rights, does not mean that they should give other groups special rights too. Last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.

It seems that most of you who are in favor of this decision say that the government should be out of marriage altogether, but for the time being, if they are in it, it might as well be given to gay couples and straight couples.

That kind of thinking is the same as saying that if marijuana is illegal and people that like marijuana cannot use it, then alcohol should also be illegal so that people who like alcohol cannot use it and it is equal for everyone.

 

[AuH20]

Can the state force churches to wed homosexuals? That's crossing a pretty big line in my mind. Why not just legalize marriage certificates for same sex couples and get it over with.

 

[RokiLothbard]

In either case, we should resist coercion. Two wrong don't make a right and inorder to prevent one wrong we shouldn't oppose a right.
I have become cynical about incrementalism seeing the hyppocroisy and so called "pragmatism", nevertheless I see it as one peaceful way to bring about organic changes in society.

As an example: many who support gay marriage, would be against polygamy or incest. Hyppocritical. But then again many "support" gay marriage out of psuedo-progressiveness of acceptance tolerance rather than the principle of the thing.

That's where the genius of Dr. Ron Paul is.

I agree with this. I forsee the net amount of coercion rising as a result of this ruling. If I'm wrong, good for all of us.

 

[RokiLothbard]

Can the state force churches to wed homosexuals? That's crossing a pretty big line in my mind. Why not just legalize marriage certificates for same sex couples and get it over with.

I dont't think that is really on the table at all.

 

[AuH20]

I dont't think that is really on the table at all.

What if they threaten to pull non-profit status. If the feds want to, they can easily make it happen. Maybe it's not likely, then again I won't put anything past them.

 

[LibertyVox]

P

eace&Freedom:

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.

Nailed it.

Just because the state wrongfully gives one group special rights, does not mean that they should give other groups special rights too. Last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.

It seems that most of you who are in favor of this decision say that the government should be out of marriage altogether, but for the time being, if they are in it, it might as well be given to gay couples and straight couples.

That kind of thinking is the same as saying that if marijuana is illegal and people that like marijuana cannot use it, then alcohol should also be illegal so that people who like alcohol cannot use it and it is equal for everyone.

Natural rights do belong to individuals and they are not derived from the government.
Judiciary is not there to give rights. It is only there to up hold the constitution. The constitution I contend, is a libertarian document. That's why you see such support for "gay" "rights". More properly put we support rights of individuals who are homosexual and recognize that we cannot enpower anyone (politician, government official, ballot box) to take away rights from someone else, because we ourselves do not have the right to do that to another individual.

Churches have the right to oppose homosexual marriages, and refuse to serve them in their congregation. Pastors and priests also have the right not to marry them, if the homosexual individuals claim to be xtian and want a traditional xtian marriage. But another pastor or rabbi may see no problem with that.

Either way, keep the government out of what people do.

If gays will burn in hell. Let them bear that cross. And I believe they shall do so gladly.

That kind of thinking is the same as saying that if marijuana is illegal and people that like marijuana cannot use it, then alcohol should also be illegal so that people who like alcohol cannot use it and it is equal for everyone.

Actually the logic is opposite of that. It is positive not negative. If alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijuana?
Even when evidence points that alcohol is cent percent more deleterious and causes more deaths than the good root.

 

[RokiLothbard]

Another take on this. This use of the 14th ammendment is very very lame.

1) can a state ban incest? How bout age of consent. That is by definition, uneqal treatment.

2) i agree that the federal income tax treament for married people is unequal treatment under the law. But why stop at only comparing to gaymarried people? The whole damn tax code is nothing but a big pile of exceptions and special breaks and penalties. So if they want to implement a fe facto flat tax on everybody in the name of equal protection , then Im all for it. Until then this ruling is like some kind of big Orwellian parody: "some people are more equal than others"

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Natural rights do belong to individuals and they are not derived from the government.
Judiciary is not there to give rights. It is only there to up hold the constitution. The constitution I contend, is libertarian document. That's why you see such support for "gay" "rights". More properly put we support rights of individuals who are homosexual and recognize that we cannot enpower anyone (politician, government official, ballot box) to take away rights from someones else. because we do not have the right to do that to another individual.

Churches have the right to oppose homosexual marriages, and refuse to serve them in their congrgation. Pastors, and priests also have the right not to marry them, if they some into the churches or claim to be xtian or whatever. But another pastor or rabbi may see no problem with that.

Either way, keep the government out of what people do.

If gays will burn in hell. Let them bear that cross.

Typically, in countries where 'gay rights' have been codified into law, churches have progressively lost all rights to oppose homosexuality, including teaching against it from the pulpit. They have rights because they are individuals, not because they are gay. But the emphasis on protecting them as gays is a privilege, which comes at the expense of individual rights, and even religious freedom to oppose them as a group.

What other historic religious rites should also be diluted into state group priveleges? If a government judge next decrees that there shalt be gay communions, and gay baptisms, or gay Passion plays, should Christians be told to butt out of that government power grab too, "in the name of liberty"?