Prop 8 Upheld by California Supreme Court

YES.. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision27-2009may27,0,6677891.story

Lucas McCain wrote:

YES.. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision27-2009may27,0,6677891.story

How can this be? I thought that the dems were in total control of everything and was taking God out of government eveywhere? Well, I guess that people won't be able to marry goats in California now.

gringaloca wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

YES.. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision27-2009may27,0,6677891.story

How can this be? I thought that the dems were in total control of everything and was taking God out of government eveywhere? Well, I guess that people won't be able to marry goats in California now.

I'm glad you approve of the ruling.. Never would have guessed it..

I approve of the ruling since it is the decision of the majority of the people in California. It just brings back memories of the law that was struck down in 1967. This law prevented blacks and whites from marrying each other.

This is why I sometimes wonder is it right for us to say who can be married to whom.

Pat Garrett wrote:

I approve of the ruling since it is the decision of the majority of the people in California. It just brings back memories of the law that was struck down in 1967. This law prevented blacks and whites from marrying each other.

This is why I sometimes wonder is it right for us to say who can be married to whom.

Good point. I think that people who believe in equal rights for all just have to be patient. The old dinosaurs who hold onto their prejudice are dying off and eventually the "old school" will be gone. It's just a matter of time. Gay marriage isn't even a real issue in cities with younger and more educated populations.

I am VERY pleasantly suprised to have heard this! Great news and imo a great decision.

gringaloca wrote:

Good point. I think that people who believe in equal rights for all just have to be patient. The old dinosaurs who hold onto their prejudice are dying off and eventually the "old school" will be gone. It's just a matter of time. Gay marriage isn't even a real issue in cities with younger and more educated populations.

Gringa, just because one disagrees with gay marriage it doesn't make them dinosaurs, prejudice or uneducated. That's quite a blanket statement by you. You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush just because someone has a different opinion than you.

Love is love. Why should it matter to any of you that they are of the same sex? I think it's so sad that this country wants to deny them of their rights.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Good point. I think that people who believe in equal rights for all just have to be patient. The old dinosaurs who hold onto their prejudice are dying off and eventually the "old school" will be gone. It's just a matter of time. Gay marriage isn't even a real issue in cities with younger and more educated populations.

Gringa, just because one disagrees with gay marriage it doesn't make them dinosaurs, prejudice or uneducated. That's quite a blanket statement by you. You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush just because someone has a different opinion than you.

I'm sorry if that sounded like a blanket statement. I will just put it this way. Most of the people I know who are anti-gay, anti-gay marriage, etc.. are older and uneducated. Maybe it's just the area I live in, who knows. And I do find it prejudice no matter who it comes from simply because gays are humans and they deserve basic human rights. One of those is to be able to marry the person they love. I'm sorry if it stings when I make statements like that but imagine how much it hurts if you are gay and are treated like some sort of pervert or second class citizen. The people who voted for Prop 8 did so with prejudice in their hearts that either came from ignorance, hatred or religious beliefs.
Here is the definition of prejudice.
prej·u·dice
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment — more at judicial
Date:13th century1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Whether people want to admit it or not, they are being prejudice if they don't want gays to marry. I still agree with Annie's solution to the whole problem and think she should take her ideas to high levels of government. It's an excellent idea.

Gringa, I don’t agree at all about it being prejudice if one disagrees about gay marriage. To me, that’s a cop out used by some to disguise the fact that they don’t like the fact that others disagree with their opinion on the subject. I, for instance, have zero problem with gays; I don’t care about what two consenting adults do. That’s why I have no problem with civil unions, but marriage is another story for me. I’m not afraid of gays, I don’t hate them, I don’t dislike them and I don’t want to see them mistreated. That doesn’t mean I have to give in to allowing them to marry.
The institution of marriage is not a basic human right, it’s a privilege, much like driving a car is a privilege. One has to meet certain criteria to receive a license to drive. Gays do not meet the criteria that religions (since marriage is a religious institution in my eyes) require for marriage. I’m fine with civil unions.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Gringa, I don’t agree at all about it being prejudice if one disagrees about gay marriage. To me, that’s a cop out used by some to disguise the fact that they don’t like the fact that others disagree with their opinion on the subject. I, for instance, have zero problem with gays; I don’t care about what two consenting adults do. That’s why I have no problem with civil unions, but marriage is another story for me. I’m not afraid of gays, I don’t hate them, I don’t dislike them and I don’t want to see them mistreated. That doesn’t mean I have to give in to allowing them to marry.
The institution of marriage is not a basic human right, it’s a privilege, much like driving a car is a privilege. One has to meet certain criteria to receive a license to drive. Gays do not meet the criteria that religions (since marriage is a religious institution in my eyes) require for marriage. I’m fine with civil unions.

I feel the same way Roy. I'm not sure about civil unions though. Could you please define what a civil union is, or would be, pertaining to same sex couples? I would greatly appreciate your input.

Why are we labeled as being prejudice, haters or bigots when we disagree with Gringa and others on the left? I must admit I ask to be scolded at times, but gee whiz, all this name calling is getting ridiculous.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Gringa, I don’t agree at all about it being prejudice if one disagrees about gay marriage. To me, that’s a cop out used by some to disguise the fact that they don’t like the fact that others disagree with their opinion on the subject. I, for instance, have zero problem with gays; I don’t care about what two consenting adults do. That’s why I have no problem with civil unions, but marriage is another story for me. I’m not afraid of gays, I don’t hate them, I don’t dislike them and I don’t want to see them mistreated. That doesn’t mean I have to give in to allowing them to marry.
The institution of marriage is not a basic human right, it’s a privilege, much like driving a car is a privilege. One has to meet certain criteria to receive a license to drive. Gays do not meet the criteria that religions (since marriage is a religious institution in my eyes) require for marriage. I’m fine with civil unions.

I feel the same way Roy. I'm not sure about civil unions though. Could you please define what a civil union is, or would be, pertaining to same sex couples? I would greatly appreciate your input.

Why are we labeled as being prejudice, haters or bigots when we disagree with Gringa and others on the left? I must admit I ask to be scolded at times, but gee whiz, all this name calling is getting ridiculous.

For the record, this left of center poster doesn't think that everyone that doesn't support gay marriage is doing so out of bigotry. I'm sure that there are some (there are alway some idiots) but I respect marriage as a religious institution. Let churches determine who should and should not be married. However, I do support civil unions between gay couples.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Gringa, I don’t agree at all about it being prejudice if one disagrees about gay marriage. To me, that’s a cop out used by some to disguise the fact that they don’t like the fact that others disagree with their opinion on the subject. I, for instance, have zero problem with gays; I don’t care about what two consenting adults do. That’s why I have no problem with civil unions, but marriage is another story for me. I’m not afraid of gays, I don’t hate them, I don’t dislike them and I don’t want to see them mistreated. That doesn’t mean I have to give in to allowing them to marry.
The institution of marriage is not a basic human right, it’s a privilege, much like driving a car is a privilege. One has to meet certain criteria to receive a license to drive. Gays do not meet the criteria that religions (since marriage is a religious institution in my eyes) require for marriage. I’m fine with civil unions.

I feel the same way Roy. I'm not sure about civil unions though. Could you please define what a civil union is, or would be, pertaining to same sex couples? I would greatly appreciate your input.

Why are we labeled as being prejudice, haters or bigots when we disagree with Gringa and others on the left? I must admit I ask to be scolded at times, but gee whiz, all this name calling is getting ridiculous.

I'm not calling anyone names and I find that pretty silly when you've had no problem referring to people as sissies, etc. because they don't believe in torture and war.
After hearing all the arguments regarding this subject and seeing how some insist that marriage is a religious institution and not a legal matter, I think it's time to do what Annie said and turn to civil unions for all and let it be up to the church whether or not they recognize gay marriage in their particular church. Many churches will recognize gay marriage as being perfectly fine (since many churches even have gay pastors) and will allow gay marriage to take place so let's get on with it. Of course, then the churches will start arguing with each other about who is holier, etc.

Before I log off for tonight (I've got a live performance of Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon to watch), if marriage was such a religious/Christian experience, why do Christians take it so lightly and get married and divorced and remarried and divorced, over and over again. Apparently it's not that sacred or they wouldn't jump in and out of it so often. I even read a study that showed that Christians in the bible belt divorce and remarry far more than non Christians from other parts of the country. I'll have to find that and post it. And another thing to consider... If marriage is a christian/religious institution, how and why are atheists and satanists, wiccans, agnostics and people who are members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster allowed to get married? What can be more anti-Christian than a satanist? It makes zero sense to me that a devil worshiper is legally allowed to get married in this country but two sweet Christian or non-Christian people of the same sex who love each other and wouldn't harm a fly can't get married. That article is right, gay is the new black. Unbelievable how backward this country is at times.

gringaloca wrote:

I'm not calling anyone names and I find that pretty silly when you've had no problem referring to people as sissies, etc. because they don't believe in torture and war.
After hearing all the arguments regarding this subject and seeing how some insist that marriage is a religious institution and not a legal matter, I think it's time to do what Annie said and turn to civil unions for all and let it be up to the church whether or not they recognize gay marriage in their particular church. Many churches will recognize gay marriage as being perfectly fine (since many churches even have gay pastors) and will allow gay marriage to take place so let's get on with it. Of course, then the churches will start arguing with each other about who is holier, etc.

Where did I refer to anyone being a sissy?

gringaloca wrote:

Before I log off for tonight (I've got a live performance of Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon to watch), if marriage was such a religious/Christian experience, why do Christians take it so lightly and get married and divorced and remarried and divorced, over and over again. Apparently it's not that sacred or they wouldn't jump in and out of it so often. I even read a study that showed that Christians in the bible belt divorce and remarry far more than non Christians from other parts of the country. I'll have to find that and post it. And another thing to consider... If marriage is a christian/religious institution, how and why are atheists and satanists, wiccans, agnostics and people who are members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster allowed to get married? What can be more anti-Christian than a satanist? It makes zero sense to me that a devil worshiper is legally allowed to get married in this country but two sweet Christian or non-Christian people of the same sex who love each other and wouldn't harm a fly can't get married. That article is right, gay is the new black. Unbelievable how backward this country is at times.

I can't speak for others as I've been married for 26 years and never been divorced. I think I take it pretty serious.
The other people you mentioned don't get married in the church and I see it as no more than a civil union. Just my opinion.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I feel the same way Roy. I'm not sure about civil unions though. Could you please define what a civil union is, or would be, pertaining to same sex couples? I would greatly appreciate your input.

Most civil unions provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. It would be debatable as to what rights in this country would be identical, I suppose.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Before I log off for tonight (I've got a live performance of Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon to watch), if marriage was such a religious/Christian experience, why do Christians take it so lightly and get married and divorced and remarried and divorced, over and over again. Apparently it's not that sacred or they wouldn't jump in and out of it so often. I even read a study that showed that Christians in the bible belt divorce and remarry far more than non Christians from other parts of the country. I'll have to find that and post it. And another thing to consider... If marriage is a christian/religious institution, how and why are atheists and satanists, wiccans, agnostics and people who are members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster allowed to get married? What can be more anti-Christian than a satanist? It makes zero sense to me that a devil worshiper is legally allowed to get married in this country but two sweet Christian or non-Christian people of the same sex who love each other and wouldn't harm a fly can't get married. That article is right, gay is the new black. Unbelievable how backward this country is at times.

I can't speak for others as I've been married for 26 years and never been divorced. I think I take it pretty serious.
The other people you mentioned don't get married in the church and I see it as no more than a civil union. Just my opinion.

Good points on the "others." Again....civil unions for all, churches decide on marriages.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I'm not calling anyone names and I find that pretty silly when you've had no problem referring to people as sissies, etc. because they don't believe in torture and war.
After hearing all the arguments regarding this subject and seeing how some insist that marriage is a religious institution and not a legal matter, I think it's time to do what Annie said and turn to civil unions for all and let it be up to the church whether or not they recognize gay marriage in their particular church. Many churches will recognize gay marriage as being perfectly fine (since many churches even have gay pastors) and will allow gay marriage to take place so let's get on with it. Of course, then the churches will start arguing with each other about who is holier, etc.

Where did I refer to anyone being a sissy?

The whole "sissy" thing is being blown way out of proportion Roy.

Remember the ridiculous video Gringa posted in reference to waterboarding and torture? I labeled the guy, you know, the one that could not stand water being poured on his face while someone held his nose, and he kept his mouth shut, for more than 6 seconds, a "sissy". That's what this is all about.

Man was that ever a mistake! I've been accused of calling a former Navy Seal a sissy and now you're getting accused of using the terrible word "sissy". I apologize for causing you to be accused of such things and will from this point on refrain from using the word SISSY on this site again.

One more thing. If I'm lucky enough to live until July 30th, I will be married to the same young lady for 27 fantastic years! And guess what? She's called me a "big sissy" on more than one occasion. How can I continue to live with her?

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I'm not calling anyone names and I find that pretty silly when you've had no problem referring to people as sissies, etc. because they don't believe in torture and war.
After hearing all the arguments regarding this subject and seeing how some insist that marriage is a religious institution and not a legal matter, I think it's time to do what Annie said and turn to civil unions for all and let it be up to the church whether or not they recognize gay marriage in their particular church. Many churches will recognize gay marriage as being perfectly fine (since many churches even have gay pastors) and will allow gay marriage to take place so let's get on with it. Of course, then the churches will start arguing with each other about who is holier, etc.

Where did I refer to anyone being a sissy?

I wasn't referring to you. I'm trying to walk the line between using general terms like them and those versus naming names. It's hard to do so don't take everything I say personally.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I'm not calling anyone names and I find that pretty silly when you've had no problem referring to people as sissies, etc. because they don't believe in torture and war.
After hearing all the arguments regarding this subject and seeing how some insist that marriage is a religious institution and not a legal matter, I think it's time to do what Annie said and turn to civil unions for all and let it be up to the church whether or not they recognize gay marriage in their particular church. Many churches will recognize gay marriage as being perfectly fine (since many churches even have gay pastors) and will allow gay marriage to take place so let's get on with it. Of course, then the churches will start arguing with each other about who is holier, etc.

Where did I refer to anyone being a sissy?

The whole "sissy" thing is being blown way out of proportion Roy.

Remember the ridiculous video Gringa posted in reference to waterboarding and torture? I labeled the guy, you know, the one that could not stand water being poured on his face while someone held his nose, and he kept his mouth shut, for more than 6 seconds, a "sissy". That's what this is all about.

Man was that ever a mistake! I've been accused of calling a former Navy Seal a sissy and now you're getting accused of using the terrible word "sissy". I apologize for causing you to be accused of such things and will from this point on refrain from using the word SISSY on this site again.

One more thing. If I'm lucky enough to live until July 30th, I will be married to the same young lady for 27 fantastic years! And guess what? She's called me a "big sissy" on more than one occasion. How can I continue to live with her?

I think you'll find that the word sissy has been used several times regarding anyone that certain people think are cowards because they didn't agree with waterboarding and torture.
I invite you all to look for it. I would but I don't have the time right now. I have to go mow my lawn. I've posted about a few people, not just one, who have been waterboarded and said it was torture. Someone even said Jesse Ventura was a sissy because he said it was torture and he was a navy seal and served our country well. I would say he is far from a "sissy" and doubt that anyone would call him one to his face.

And as far as accusing you of calling Jesse a sissy. I don't remember saying you were the one who said it but I may have. I'll have to go look. I try not to name names to avoid personal attacks but I have to admit there are a couple of you who sound so much alike, it's hard to tell you apart. Anyway, the quote about Jesse was

Quote :

Wow.. Didn't realize Ventura was such a sissy....

and the poster was Lucas McCain. Sorry about naming names but I sorta had to to vindicate myself here.

PS Mr. Pig....There is a huge difference between calling your wife a sissy and calling people who have served our country and protected us a sissy. HUGE difference. It's a complete insult and not very patriotic.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Before I log off for tonight (I've got a live performance of Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon to watch), if marriage was such a religious/Christian experience, why do Christians take it so lightly and get married and divorced and remarried and divorced, over and over again. Apparently it's not that sacred or they wouldn't jump in and out of it so often. I even read a study that showed that Christians in the bible belt divorce and remarry far more than non Christians from other parts of the country. I'll have to find that and post it. And another thing to consider... If marriage is a christian/religious institution, how and why are atheists and satanists, wiccans, agnostics and people who are members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster allowed to get married? What can be more anti-Christian than a satanist? It makes zero sense to me that a devil worshiper is legally allowed to get married in this country but two sweet Christian or non-Christian people of the same sex who love each other and wouldn't harm a fly can't get married. That article is right, gay is the new black. Unbelievable how backward this country is at times.

I can't speak for others as I've been married for 26 years and never been divorced. I think I take it pretty serious.
The other people you mentioned don't get married in the church and I see it as no more than a civil union. Just my opinion.

I'm sorry but you are wrong on that one. Lots of people get married by pastors and in churches that are total atheists, etc. Heck, I can name a few I know personally so there has to be millions of them.

gringaloca wrote:

I'm sorry but you are wrong on that one. Lots of people get married by pastors and in churches that are total atheists, etc. Heck, I can name a few I know personally so there has to be millions of them.

Then they're total hypocrites.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I'm sorry but you are wrong on that one. Lots of people get married by pastors and in churches that are total atheists, etc. Heck, I can name a few I know personally so there has to be millions of them.

Then they're total hypocrites.

True. Lots of them are but some do it because it's just what is considered traditional especially in the Bible belt. It's just a place to get married. Look at Las Vegas. People go there to get married in those little chapels who use ordained ministers dressed like vampires, aliens, demons, nude etc. and their marriages are perfectly legal and done in a church. They come in drunk as skunks and don't even know the last name of who they are marrying but it's legal. I know pastors around here who will marry anyone if you pay their fee and they don't ask if they are Christians. And what about gay pastors? They do marriage ceremonies all the time and those marriages are perfectly legal. It just seems silly that anyone can get married, no matter how different they are with the churches blessing as long as they are of the opposite sex. If marriage is a Christian/religious institution then why are satanist, etc. allowed to get married? I know you may see it as a civil union but it's not.
If people want to make marriage a religious thing, then instead of just making gay marriage illegal, they better make it illegal for anyone other than Christians or they are being hypocrites themselves. JMHO. Just like the guy sang in his song...lots of things were considered abominations in the Bible which we wouldn't even think twice about doing as Christians today. For example, my mother remarried my dad after she was married to another man. Check out Deut 24:4 Is she an abomination now? I certainly don't think so. Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16). What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), Lobster Newburg at the Krebs and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Dinosaur Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7). Charging or paying interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10). Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's buttondown can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.
I think you see where I am going with this. According to the Old Testament, sin is sin. There is none that is bigger than another so if "laying with another man" is an abomination and gays shouldn't get married because it's considered an abomination, we've got TONS of laws to be passing right away so if you've got any blended fabric cloths you like or need to trim your beard, you better get ready to because you are gonna go see .
It all comes down to this. We have the new testament for a reason. The old testament is just that...OLD. Jesus came and everything changed.

Quote :

Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ have been culturally conditioned not to accept gays into full membership in the body of Christ. Recent biblical scholarship has uncovered that in Jesus' teachings about accepting eunuchs - the term "eunuch" in Jesus' time included gays. Also, many Christians reject gays relying on the purity codes of the Mosaic Law, which manifest the Old Testament Covenant between God and Israel. These purity codes do not apply to those who are under the New Covenant between God and Christians mediated by Jesus. As a consequence of these miss-translations and misunderstandings, gays have not been permitted full participation in the life of the Church and have been denied rights under the law.

Quote :

Jesus accepted eunuchs just as they are, explaining to his disciples, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive this." (Matthew 19:12)

Quote :

Jesus' teachings must be our supreme moral guide. Because whether we are conservative, moderate, or progressive Christians we all acknowledge Jesus as Lord - and, as our Lord, we must faithfully follow his teachings and commandments.

Jesus told his disciples on numerous occasions that he expects them to live by his teachings and keep his commandments. Examples follow: (1) "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15, RSV.), (2) "He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:24, RSV.), (3) "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (John 15:10, RSV.), and (4) "Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46, RSV.)

Jesus asserts his authority over the Mosaic Law by stating: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment...." (Matthew 5:21-22, RSV, emphasis added.) If there is an unresolved conflict between Jesus' teachings and other Scriptural texts, Jesus' teachings have supremacy.

Jesus brings us the truth underlying the interpretation of the Mosaic Law by declaring: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17, RSV, emphasis added.) Therefore, Jesus' teachings must inform our interpretation of other Scriptural texts.

For all the above reasons, Jesus' teachings must be our supreme moral guide. If Jesus' accepted gays, then we must also!

Link to article that I quoted from