Proponents of Prop. 8 don't follow Jesus' teachings

jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you read Jerry Brown’s latest brief to the Sup Ct of Cal?

I read his summary. He is saying that he will not pursue a defense of the matter and wants it overturned.

I am not surprised. I have despised Jerry Brown for decades, because he takes these ridiculous stands and regularly violates his oath of office. I do not find his thinking at all reasonable or insightful.

jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
If the amendment creates an ambiguity in the interpretation of the remainder of the amendment, you need to try to reconcile the amendment with the remainder of the constitution using conflict resolution principles and, if they cannot be resolved, you must invalidate the amendment. You don’t just give it full force and effect, as you suggest.

That is either extremely novel (as in "never ever been heard of before") or utterly shoddy and incompetent legal thinking.

It is long-standing practice that if one part of a Constitution appears to be in conflict with another part, it is the role of the court NOT to do away with EITHER part but to find a balance that applies to individual cases.

That is the way it has worked for hundreds of years at the Federal Level and for decades at the State level. Your assessment that the court could just "Vanish" a part of the constitution it does not like is simply ridiculous.

What it COULD do is declare that it is not an amendment but a revision. In which case it was not approved through the correct process. However, that is very strained legal thinking. I am not saying it might not happen, but if that actually occurs it will be very clear that the judges are not ruling per law and precident -- they will be nakedly exposed as partisans and enemies of the people, since, until now, a revision has been defined as striking out vast written sections of the already approved document.

This is already the precident. Most objective legal scholars agree that the amendment is, in fact, an amendment. However, that does not mean the court will rule that way.

We shall see. If they do rule that way, it will give greater ammunition to a Federal Constitutional Amendment which will surely pass.

Redwood wrote:

How is it bigotry when we were asked to vote on it? I guess if you didn't vote for Obama because he was black people would call that bigotry. The fact that a certain number of citizens of this state did not agree with Prop 8 automatically makes them bigots? Wow, be careful what you say to anyone, it might get you identified as something that you're not. It appears to me that the no on 8 folks are more upset because they assumed that they were living in the most liberal state in the union. Apparently they aren't. They assumed and we know what that is when broken down don't we? As Newsom Gavin said "Like it or not, it's here to stay!" It would be curious to see what was said if prop 8 had failed. I wonder then if the word bigot would have even shown up in conversation. Oh well, we'll never know.

Actually, if you didn't vote for Obama ONLY because of his race, because you feel that black folks are in some odd way "less", then yes, you would indeed be a bigot.

Voting to deny a minority the same civil rights you enjoy, for no rational reason other than your fear and or hatred of them, or because you find them "icky" as a group is also bigotry.

Bigotry is always based on irrationality.

It's always wise to call things by their broper name.

I guess you could classify the entire human race as bigots. It does not matter what the situation, if one person speaks out in regards to something they do or do not believe in they are a bigot in someone else's eyes right?

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>It is long-standing practice that if one part of a Constitution appears to be in conflict with another part, it is the role of the court NOT to do away with EITHER part but to find a balance that applies to individual cases.

The distinction here, of course, is that this is a rare instance in which an amendment takes away a fundamental right of a minority. How can you find a balance when one part of the constitution says that everyone enjoys a fundamental and inalienable right to marry and then the majority amends the constitution to take that inalienable right away from a minority? Those two points are irreconcilable. You're trying to take something away that the remainder of the constitition says cannot be taken away.

I think you need to remember when the Constitution was written.

Aunt Sharon wrote:

I think you need to remember when the Constitution was written.

Why? So that African Americans wouldn't be allowed to marry either, let alone vote? Is that where you think we should be now?

Jimbo, I am not telling you where anyone should be. Just stating a fact.

jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? So that African Americans wouldn't be allowed to marry either, let alone vote? Is that where you think we should be now?

Dirt Nazi wrote:

<quoted text>sounnd like you have other issues. marrige is between a man and a woman. because the last time i checked thats how we got here . but some people havent figured that out. 1 corinthians 6:9 -11 you should read up . sex between any other than man and his wife is immoral and perverse. we cristians don't hate we just do not see where we are supposed to honnor marrige vows to same sex perverts like yourself in our churches.

You quote scripture, and yet ignore the fact that thru the entire time period that the bible covers, marriage was between a man and as many women as his father could afford.
And descriptions of temple rituals involving prostitution and bacchanalia has no place in a discussion about modern homosexuality.
BTW, Corinthians is NOT the word of Jesus. Please tell us where Jesus specically mentions homosexuality in the Bible. Jesus, not Peter or Paul.

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. Not only can you, you must. Amendments AMEND the Constitution. They become PART of it.
It is hard for me to understand why this extremely basic legal concept is hard for you to understand. It does not require a law degree to understand it, yet to you, it is the deepest mystery.
FYI, The issue that is being challenged before the court is not "is this Unconstitutional" but rather "is this an Amendment or a Revision?". As far as I know, there are no challenges that rest upon this being "Unconstitutional".

And the courts have the power to determine whether that amendment is constitutional or not. If the amendment changes the constitution in a basic way, as Prop 8 does by denying civil rights to a segment of the population (actually TAKING AWAY RIGHTS that we had until the election), then the courts can find it to be not an amendment at all, but a REVISION, which requires much more than a popular majority.

jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
The distinction here, of course, is that this is a rare instance in which an amendment takes away a fundamental right of a minority.

First of all, that is irrelevant. An amendment may do whatever it does.

Second, there are not rights taken away.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
And the courts have the power to determine whether that amendment is constitutional or not.

That is entirely false. The courts have no power to decide that one part of the Constitution is valid and another part is not valid.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
You quote scripture, and yet ignore the fact that thru the entire time period that the bible covers, marriage was between a man and as many women as his father could afford.

So what? Why is this important to the fact that while marriage may have been defined in some times and places as between one man and many women or sometimes one woman and many men, NEVER has it EVER been defined as between people of the same sex.

This is a fundamental cultural norm and ignoring this is just weird.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
And descriptions of temple rituals involving prostitution and bacchanalia has no place in a discussion about modern homosexuality.

Just declaring that it has no place does not mean it has no place.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW, Corinthians is NOT the word of Jesus. Please tell us where Jesus specically mentions homosexuality in the Bible. Jesus, not Peter or Paul.

There are many things Jesus never spoke of. For example, Jesus never mentions bestiality, rape or incest yet it would be an odd to therefore suppose he favored those things when they were condemned by the laws he said he fully supported.

And homosexuality as well as bestiality, rape and incest are condemned by those laws. Jesus never says "That part of the law should be done away".

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
the courts can find it to be not an amendment at all, but a REVISION, which requires much more than a popular majority.

That is true, they can find that way. But not according to precedent and prior discussions on what constitutes revision vs amendment.

I also happen to think that there is a legal argument to be made that even a revision may be conducted by popular vote.

Overdubbed wrote:

<quoted text>
Second, there are not rights taken away.

Saying that over and over doesn't make it true. Remember, this appeal is being heard by the Sup Ct of Cal, which already ruled that the Cal. constitition's guarantee of the fundamental right of marriage includes the right of gays to same sex marriage. That was the law of the land before prop 8. So yes, prop 8 does take that fundamental right to same sex marriage away. What is it about this that you don't understand (or don't want to acknowledge)???

jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.

That is correct. But, I say it over and over again, because you incorrectly say, over and over again that they were taken -- which, though you say it over and over again, does not make it true.

jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
What is it about this that you don't understand (or don't want to acknowledge)???

I do not understand what rights were taken. I do not understand that in the teeniest tiniest bit, since there have been no rights taken.

Christian group loses grant over gay 'cures'
Friday 09 January 2009

An orthodox Christian group which offers a course which can ‘cure’ homosexuality has lots its government subsidy with immediate effect, equality minister Ronald Plasterk told MPs on Thursday.

Evangelical Christian organisation Onze Weg (our way) was awarded a grant of €50,000 in September. The Arnhem-based foundation says it does not want to ‘cure’ gayness because it is not an illness.

However, the organisation does offer a course which ‘can lead to a reduction in homosexual feelings… and in some cases a switch to heterosexuality,’ the minister said in a letter to MPs.

‘The subsidy was meant to raise the social acceptability of homosexuality under orthodox Christians. Of course we cannot support groups which want to help people get rid of their homosexual tendancies,’ he said.

The revelations about the group were made in magazine Revu in December. Revu also claimed another group, RefoAnders, was also trying to ‘cure’ gayness. Plasterk said he had also asked that group for more information.

In total the government gives some €450,000 in grants to eight gay Christian groups, ranging from liberal to fundamentalist, says the Volkskrant. Much of this month goes to boosting the acceptability of gay teachers.

© DutchNews.nl

homophobia is gay. why are they so different? a gay person could just as easily say that its weird to like women, you're just stupid and narrow minded if you don't accept gays